TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the period from September 2009 to March 2010 (herein after referred to as the "relevant period"), the Appellant suppled various steel pipe fittings namely tube bend, tea, reducer, elbow, etc. to several Mega Power Projects including the Vallur Thermal Project, Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Project, Jhajjar, Durgapur Steel Thermal Power station, among others. These supplies were made pursuant to purchase orders issued by M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Piping Centre, Chennai, a Government of India PSU, which had secured the respective contracts through International Competitive Bidding (ICB). The appellant's clearances were supported by the project authority certificates furnished by BHEL, issued on the basis of certificates-cum-declarations from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, declaring the respective projects as "Mega Power Projects." On this basis, the appellant claimed exemption from central excise duty by availing the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 91). 2.1. The appellant thereafter received a Notice to Show Cause dated 01.10.2010 issued vide C. No. vCH.73(15)97/CE/Hal/Adjn/10/21633. The SCN alleged that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the instant case being similar to those in the cases cited supra, he prayed that the appeal be allowed. 3.1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also tendered a written submission dated 21.11.2025 making various submissions on the merits of the issue; various case-laws have also been cited by the respondent in support of the said contentions. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue has reiterated the findings in the impugned order and justified the impugned demands and prayed for rejection of the instant appeal. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records as well as the submissions made by both the sides. 6. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal pertains to alleged irregular availment of the benefit of central excise exemption Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 91), in respect of domestic clearance of goods falling under chapter 73 (Pipe fittings) to Mega Power Projects under an international competitive bidding on the premise/contention that(a) the underlying goods are not generally exempted from duties of customs; and (b) the underlying goods does not fall under Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....power plant or solar power project IV. Mining project V. Project for exploration for oil or other minerals, and VI. Such other projects, other than solar power projects, as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette with regard to the economic development of the country; and spare parts, other raw materials (including semi-finished materials) or consumable stores not exceeding 10% of the value of the goods specified above, provided that such spare parts, raw materials or consumables are essential for the maintenance of the plant or project mentioned in (1) to (6) above." 7.3. Relying on the description of Heading 9801, the Ld. adjudicating authority held that only "machinery" falling under Chapters 84 and 85 would qualify, and that the appellant's products, falling under Chapter 73, were outside its ambit. 8. We find that the authorities below have adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of Heading 9801. The heading is intentionally expansive and covers not only "machinery" but also instruments, apparatus, appliances, control gear, transmission equipment, auxiliary equipment, and all components or raw materials requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oject under International Competitive Bidding is on record and not in dispute. The Appellant is legally entitled to exemption from payment of Central Excise duty and thus the duty demand is not sustainable." 10.1. A similar issue also came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2 v. Commissioner of C.Ex. and S.T., Raipur [2013 (298) E.L.T. 79 (Tri. - Del.)]. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as given below: - "We find that goods in question are classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Tariff. Under Central Excise Tariff there is no Heading 98.01 and which exists in Customs Tariff only. Since the goods manufactured in India can not be classified under 98.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, denial of the exemption on the ground of non-fulfilment of condition of Project Import Regulation is not sustainable particularly when condition No. 86 of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 is fulfilled by them. Similar submissions were made by Revenue for denying the benefit of Notification 6/2006, dated 1-3-2006 on the ground of non-fulfilment of conditions of the Project Import Regulation in case of Sarita Steels and Industries L....