Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1534 - AT - Central ExciseSupply of goods for setting up of Mega Power against International Competitive Bidding (ICB) - sub-contract - benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended - denial of the benefit of the exemption on the ground that the appellant had not directly participated in the International Competitive Bidding - HELD THAT:- Notification only stipulates that the excisable goods supplied against an ICB are eligible from payment of duty. In our view there is no condition stipulated in the notification that the person claiming benefit for the goods cleared should have been the bidder in ICB for the mega power project. In our view so long as the goods are supplied to such contract awarded to a person who took part in the International Competitive Bidding, the benefit is not deniable. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) had participated in the ICB and entered into an agreement with M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. (Project Authority) for setting up of the 1000MW Raigarh Thermal Power Project in Chhattisgarh. This project received the status of Mega Power Project from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Power. BHEL had sub-contracted the Appellant for the supply of boilers and parts for setting up of the plant. The Project Authority Certificate also clearly recognized the Appellant as one of the sub-contractors for the supply of boilers and parts for the aforesaid project. Tribunal under similar circumstances, in the case of M/S TOSHNIWAL INDUS. PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR-II [2017 (5) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] had decided the issue rejecting a similar contention raised by the department as in the present case, holding that sub-contractor did not take part in International Competitive Bidding. Thus, Appellant is entitled to avail benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE as amended vide Notification No. 48/2004-CE and its successor notification No. 6/2006-CE. Hence, the demand confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned orders is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|