TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra, Silvassa, (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant' for the sake of brevity), are engaged in the manufacture of electric wire and cable XLPE falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 85446090 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for which they are holding Central Excise Registration no. ASACL5599HEM004. 1.1 The Appellant received Project Authority Certificate (PAC) bearing No. PAC (Amendment No. 3) vide Contract No. MR/MH/MM/LSTK/JRB/Revamp-Glycol-Ho-CW/56/09/Y 15RC09010/ PC-7024 DT. 14.09.2010. issued by M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation for contract awarded against International Competitive Bidding to M/s. HAL offshore Limited as Main Contractor and the Appellant has been mentioned as Sub-Contractor. 1.2 Based on aforesaid PAC, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant is not requiring fulfilling the conditions given in Notification No.34/2006-CE dt. 14-06-2006 and not require following the procedure prescribed vide Board Circular. The Appellant submitted before Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were cleared without payment of duty by availing the benefit of Sr.No.336 of Notification No.12/2012-CE dt.17-03-2012 as the goods are cleared against International Competitive Bidding. The clearance of goods under International Competitive Bidding is exempt from duty vide Sr.No.336 of Notification No.12/2012-CE The Appellant has submitted the copies of the PAC as well as copies of the Central Excise invoices before the Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate that the goods were cleared by availing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustan Aeronautics Ltd and a necessary project authority was submitted that is the only requirement for availing the exemption Notification No. 12/2012-CE, therefore, there is no reason to deny the exemption notification. 2.1 He further submits that the demand was raised by invoking the extended period, however, there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant with intention to evade the payment of duty. Therefore, the demand is hit by time bar. He further submits that the identical issue has been decided in the appellant own case . He placed reliance on the following judgments:- KEC International Ltd - Final Order No. 11181-11183/2024 dated 07.06.2024 (Tri. Ahmd) Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Bombay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of the Custom notification no. 21/2002 cannot be applied to the appellant who is not the importer of the goods. Therefore, the benefit of Sr. No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE and Sr. No. 336 of notification no. 12/2012-CE could not be denied to them as the goods were duly Certified by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to the effect that all the invoices were for the goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding. 5. As regards non-observance of the condition with respect to furnishing of undertaking by the Chief Executive Officer, in view of the categorical findings of the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that the genuineness of the quantum of the claim of the appellant on the verification of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued that the requisite Certificate from the Ministry was endorsed directly to the Deputy Commissioner, therefore the necessary condition in this respect is satisfied. He further argued that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in his report dated 26.02.2016 has stated that all the invoices as per Annexure has been verified and found as per the goods supplied for the project. Therefore, the requisite condition has been substantially satisfied. As the appellant has fulfilled the substantive condition of the notification, benefit of exemption Notification should not be denied by applying the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, it is also not disputed that the invoices were issued according to the project Certificate. Once these conditions are satisfied, merely that the requisite certificate was not furnished by the appellant is merely procedural. Further, the purpose of required undertaking was merely to ensure that the exemption is not being misused. Once the genuineness of the invoices has been verified and found to be justify the quantum of claim of the appellant as verified by the Jurisdictional assistant Commissioner, the non-submission of undertaking by the appellant is merely procedural and the appellant should not be denied the substantial benefit merely for procedural lapse. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement in the case of Hari Chan....