TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber 2011, it is observed that appellant had cleared excisable goods without payment of duty by claiming benefit of Exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 related to Mega Power project. On verification of the documents submitted by the Appellant, it is observed that the Managing Director of the project has furnished the undertaking to the Respondent whereas as per the Notification, he shall furnish necessary documents from an officer not below the Rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Power certifying that the project as Mega Power Project. Thus, for the failure of the Appellant to comply with the conditions, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice (SCN) dated 18.12.2012 was issued. Thereafter 5(five) more show cause notices were issued to the Appellant on the same allegation demanding duty for the goods cleared for the period from January 2012 to September 2012, the details are tabulated below; Sl. No Appeal No. SCN Date Period of demand 1 E/21742/2017 07.01.2013 January, 2012 2 E/21744/2017 26.02.2013 February, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PW/PE/PG/BAR/P-665/11 dated 04.11.2011. b. Project Authority Certificate No: JPVL/PPGCL/BTG/PAC/01 dated 02.11.2010 c. Copy of the Certificate issued by the Joint Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Power Recognizing as Mega Power Project. d. Copy of the undertaking letter addressed to The Superintendent of Central Excise Peenya, Range-V, Bangalore by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Noida. 6. Further as per the letter issued by Managing Director it is specifically stated that; I, Rakesh Sharma, Managing Director of Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd. 3x660 MW Prayagraj Thermal Power Project, Tehsil-Bara, District Allahabad (U.P.), which is a mega power project as certified by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power (vide certificate dated 29th September 2010) do hereby undertake that: i) the goods mentioned in the certificate ref. no PPGCL/ Noida/BHEL/PEM/14 dated 12.12.2011, will be used for the Prayagraj Thermal Power Project and not for any other use. ii) in case the said goods are not used for the Prayagraj Thermal Power Project, we undertake to pay the excise duty which would have been leviable at the time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted on 31.08.2012 against two projects of Sagardighi Thermal Project. Similarly in Appeal No. E/21745/2017 for the Lalithpur Power Project, show cause notice (SCN) was issued on 04.09.2013 and documents were submitted on 21.09.2012. Thus, the appellant complied with the conditions of the notifications to produce documents. Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is considered in the matter of KEC International Ltd, Shri DP Shrivastava and Shri Tarun Santra Vs. CCE & ST, Silvassa - 2024 (6) TMI 300 CESTAT, AHMEDABAD, wherein it is held that:- "7. In this case the demand has been confirmed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce the requisite certificate to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources/ Ministry of New and Renewable Energy as well as an undertaking that the goods will be used only in the said project and not for any other use. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the requisite Certificate from the Ministry was endorsed directly to the Deputy Commissioner, therefore the necessary co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 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 Chand Shri Gopal cited by the AR has made an exception to such procedural lapse where it is ascertained that the manufacturer was eligible to avail the exemption. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29 of the judgement has cited with approval that - "In J.K. Synthetics (supra), the assessee was the manufacturer of polyster chips, staple fibre and tow from Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG). On importing those goods, they claimed exemption from payment of additional duty of customs thereon because MEG was exempted from the payment of excise duty by virtue of notification dated 4-51987 issued under Section 8 of the Tariff Act. In that case, the contention was raised by the Revenue that the assessee had not followed t....