TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aft couplings and cleared 8 Nos. of Metaflex Floting Shaft Coupling without payment of duty availing exemption benefit of the above cited Notification to M/s Jindal Power Limited on account of M/s BHEL. 2.1 On perusal of the said notification no.48/2004-CE dated 10.09.2004, it was leant that this notification is an amendment of the earlier notification no.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. In this notification, it has been mentioned at Sl. No. 301 that excisable goods falling under any chapter if supplied against International Competitive Bidding will be charged at nil rate of duty subject to fulfillment of condition No.64 as stipulated at column 6. The condition no.64 reads as "if the goods are exempted from the duties of Customs leviable unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e produced copy of the project contract Registered at any customs port. They have also not produced copy of evidence that they are not captive power plant, as the captive power plant is excluded from scope of Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Heading. From close study of these notifications, it appears that no exemption was available under these notifications for goods falling under chapter heading 84.83 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 85 since Sl. 400 of notification no.21/2002-Cus dt. 01.03.2002 as it relates to specific Chapter heading no.98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, (51 of 1975). 2.2 After recording the statement of the Director, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the benefit of the above cited Notification and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., was done so, after a certificate issued by Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India to BHEL and consequent sub-contract given by BHEL. It is also undisputed that the appellant had produced certificate of the receipt of excisable goods at the site of mega power project duly signed by authorized representative of M/s. Jindal Power Ltd., who were sub-contractor of BHEL for execution of such mega power project. On the perusal of the entire Order-in-Original, we find that the adjudicating authority has sought to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006 only on two ground i.e. SSIL has not participated in the international competitive bidding and goods falling under chapter 72 of the Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, so certified by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power, that is to Say - (a) an inter-State thermal power plant of a capacity of 700MW or more, located in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mozoram, Nagaland and Tirupura; or (b) an inter-State thermal power plant of a capacity of 1000MW or more, located in the States other than those specified in clause (a) above; or (c) an inter-State hydel power plant of a capacity of 350MW or more, located in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mozoram, Nagaland and Tirupura; or (d)&ems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India," It is not in dispute that the goods imported for supply to Mega Projects are entitled to whole duty exemption under Customs Tariff Act. The next thing to be examined is whether the goods supplied are against International Competitive Bidding. The appellants are a sub-contractor of M/s. BHEL. M/s. BHEL is executing the Mega Project for Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Project by International Bidding. The appellants have submitted ail the relevant records. The appellants are also found in the list of sub-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case is clearly applicable to the present case. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with conseguential relief, if any." It can be seen that in the said case of CST Ltd., an identical issue was raised and again in respect of the very same executor of mega power project i.e. BHEL. We find that the ratio as reproduced hereinabove squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. As regards submissions made by ld. SDR, we find that the wordings of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. categorically indicates that the "goods" which are required for execution of mega power project are exempted. It is undisputed in the case before us that channels, beams, angles are goods required for....