TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff Act, 1975 and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. The appellant supplied the goods to different power projects against international competitive biddings by the clearing the goods without payment of duty. The appellant supplied the goods on the strength of Project Authority's Certificate which also contains the name of the appellant, Certificate of Joint Secretary certifying the Mega Power Status and other things and before clearance of the goods intimated the department the appellant raised the invoices also showing nil rate of duty. 2.1 The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2011 for the period of September, 2010 to September, 2011 but denying the benefit of the said notification. Thereafter, the matter was adjudicated and benefit of exemption notification was denied. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Appellants submits that in their own case for the earlier period, the issue has been settled that the goods manufactured by the appellant was classified under chapter 84139120 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are entitled to exemption under notification number 6/2006-C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y indicates that the goods were supplied to Power Projects approved against international competitive bidding, as required for avalling the benefit of the Notification 6/2006-Ce 01.03.2006. 9. The Appellant further submits that goods supplied by the appellant may fall under any Chapter heading, but if required for the mega power project, the same would be covered by Sub-heading No.9801 in terms of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1.3.2002. Thus, they contended that there is no dispute that the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 10. The Appellant stated that similar type of cases came up for consideration earlier before the Tribunals and it has been consistently held by the Tribunals In the similar set of facts and circumstances that the Appellants were eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. They relied upon the following decisions in support of their contention: (i) Sarita Steels & Industries Ltd. 2011 (264) ELT 313 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Cords Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (342) ELT 264 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Paramount Communication Ltd. 016 (344) ELT 091 (Tri.-Del.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Customs Tarrif Act, 1965 (51 of 1976) ad the additional duty leviable upper Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced entry No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006 that goods of any chapter if supplied against international competitive bidding, exemption is available subject to the condition as reproduced above. The condition No. 19 requires all the goods re to be exempted under the Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. On perusal of the relevant entries in the Customs Tariff Act, we find that at entry No.400, the following is indicated in notification No.21/2002-Cus. 40098.1Goods required for setting up of any Mega Power Project, so certified by an officer no 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, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura; or b) an inter-State thermal power plant of capacity or 1000MW or more, located in the States other the those specified in clause (a) above;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants to BHEL, who are executing the project by International Competitive Bidding, It is very clear that the goods deared by the appellants should be considered as "goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding". There is absolutely no need that the appellants themselves should have been the bidder in International Competitive Bidding. In huge projects, the main contractor does not do everything. There is always a systern of sub-contractors. If we take a view that the goods cleared by sub-contractor does not do everything. There is the ground they are not the bidders, the very purpose of the Notification would be defeated because the main contractor will be having hundreds of sub-contractors in Mega Projects. In our view, inasmuch as the appellants had supplied the goods to M/s. BHEL, who are the bidders, the very purpose of the Notification would be defeated because the main contractor will be having hundreds of sub-contractors in Mega Projects. In our view, inasmuch as the appellants had supplied the goods to M/s. BHEI, who are the bidders of International Competitive Bidding, the condition of the Notification is satisfied and there is no justification for denyi....