TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the appellant after following the process of International Competitive Bidding (ICB). The appellants are eligible to claim exemption from payment of whole of duty of Central Excise in respect of all items of equipment, including machinery, and rolling stock for use in the specified DMRC projects. The exemption has been notified at Sr. No. 90 to Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. The exemption is applicable to all supplies made by the appellant to M/s. DMRC for the specified projects. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the appellant was also eligible to claim exemption in respect of the goods manufactured by it in its factory and supplied against ICB. These exemptions have been granted at Sr. No 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE. He argued that both exemption i.e. at Sr. No. 90 as well as 91 of the said notifications are available independently to the appellant. He argued that the supplies to DMRC were covered under ICB procedure and therefore the benefit of Rule 6(6) of CCR, 2004 is applicable to them. He further argued that the issue has been decided in numerous other decisions including the following:- a. CST Ltd. 2008 (230) E.L.T. 85 (Tri. - Bang.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant had obtained the contract under International Competitive Bidding from DMRC. The appellant had two units one located at Maneja and other at Savli. This demand of Cenvat Credit pertains to the goods manufactured in Maneja. It is not disputed in the instant case that the dispute relates to the goods supplied by the appellant from its plant in Maneja to other plant located at Savli. It is also fact that the appellant has obtained the contract for manufacture of equipment for DMRC under International Competitive Bidding Sub-Rule (6) of the Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Provides an exception from Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 for such supplies. "(6) The provisions of Sub-Rules (1), (2) (3) & (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either (i)... (ii). (vi) all goods which are exempt from duties of Customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the Additional Duty leviable under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, when imported into India and are supplied (a) against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is clear that in case of procurement of inputs in question the condition as laid down under notification has not been complied therefore, the benefit of the Notification ibid as claimed by them cannot be extended to them. Just because of mentioning on the body of contract that goods supplied under international competitive bedding, the benefit of Notification ibid cannot be extended to them until and unless the intention inherited in it complied by them. Once the assessee has failed to procure the goods on behalf of DMRC, then under such facts and circumstances, the goods cleared by them cannot be considered the clearance of goods under international competitive bidding. This view is supported by the ratio of judgments in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs Harichand Sri Gopal [(2010)(260) ELT 3(SC). The relevant text of the judgment is reproduced below. (xv). "22. The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the cast may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Indian OIL corporation Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara 2012(276) ELT 145 (SC) (xx). In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010 (260) ELT 0003 (S.C.)= (2011) 1 SCC 236] a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the decisions of this Court in Thermax Private Limited v. The Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House (supra) and Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics (supra) and held that a provision for exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly and if the exemption is available only on complying certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. In the aforesaid decision, the Constitution Bench further held that detailed procedures have been laid down in Chapter X of the Rules so as to curb the diversion and utilization of goods which are otherwise excisable and the plea of substantial compliance or intended use therefore has to be rejected." 6. The adjudicating authority has raised doubts about the use of all the goods supplied by the Maneja plant to the Savli plant being in the nature of the goods supplied in connection with the contract with DMRC. From t....