TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registration. Subsequent investigation revealed that they were engaged in various types of fabrication using MS plates, sheets, bars, etc., and therefore, clearly the resulting goods were manufactured goods and liable to Central Excise duty. Further, the appellants submitted that these manufactured goods were meant for supply to firms/companies engaged in the oil exploration activity like M/s Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) in the KG basin and therefore, exempted in terms of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dt.01.03.2002 and Notification No.6/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006. It was also submitted that they had obtained project authority certificates from their customers to the effect that the said goods were required in connection with petroleum operations undertaken under petroleum exploration licenses or mining leases obtained/allotted under International Competitive Bidding (ICB). The department felt that the goods were not supplied to projects allotted through ICB route and relied on the fact that the judgment in the case of CST Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad [2007 (217) ELT 513 (Tri-Bang)] relied by the appellant was still pending finalization. 3. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority examine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TP in connection with petroleum operations undertaken by them and do not state that the goods supplied by the appellants to M/s RIL are used as supplies against ICB and also the fact that the work has not been directly awarded under ICB to the appellants themselves but to M/s RIL. 5. Learned Advocate has mainly contested the impugned order on the following two grounds: a) The decision in the case of CST ltd by the Tribunal holding that a subcontractor who supplied the goods to the contractor who is executing the work under ICB is also eligible is appealed against before the Hon'ble High Court and it is pending in the Court and the issue has not reached finality. b) The appellants failed to submit proof that the goods are supplied against ICB. 6. Insofar as the first issue (a) is concerned, the appeal has been withdrawn by the Revenue as reported in [2016 (339) ELT A151 (AP)]. Therefore, the decision in the case of CST Ltd holding that a sub-contractor who supplied the goods to the contractor who is executing work under ICB is also eligible for the exemption stands in their favour. He has also relied on Board Circular dt.10.07.2014, wherein, it was clarified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for the said exemption notification. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. Essentially, we find that the core issue in this appeal is that the appellants, who have admittedly manufactured excisable goods liable to Central Excise duty, are entitled for exemption notification 06/2006-CE or otherwise in the given factual matrix. From the grounds taken in the SCN, we find that essentially the department felt that they have not supplied any goods/order directly to project awarded under ICB route and therefore, not entitled for the benefit. However, we find that in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate, it is clearly a case where they have provided goods to the companies for the purpose of use in the project, which were awarded to those companies under ICB route only. The department also relied on the fact that they had failed to prove that goods were supplied against ICB. The adjudicating authority has tried to distinguish this by holding that the block was licensed/leased to M/s RIL through ICB process, however, the oil exploration carried out at the said blocks by M/s RIL was on their own account and it cannot be said that the said activity was carri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest (EOI) (RIL/E&P/EOI/2007/07), which has been issued by M/s RIL where it has been clearly mentioned that the said EOI inviting interest under ICB for supply of certain equipment, materials and related services for exploratory drilling. In the said EOI, M/s RIL has declared themselves as 'operator' and on their behalf as well as on behalf of other partners like NIKO (NECO) Ltd, ONGC Ltd, etc., inviting EOI for certain blocks, which were acquired under NELP1, NELP2, etc. Thus, it is obvious that M/s RIL as operator, has placed order on the appellant and therefore, supply of the material pursuant thereto to the activity allotted to them through ICB by the Government. Therefore, once the supply has been made pursuant to purchase order issued by M/s RIL as operator, it would be obvious that the supplies are in relation to project, which has been awarded under ICB. If the department had any doubt on this aspect, they could have made enquiries from the supplier, who had placed such purchase order on the appellant, wherein, they had also clearly mentioned that there is no excise duty leviable on the said activities, presumably on the fact that they were getting these materials for the ....