Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 498 - CESTAT NEW DELHIMega Power projects - international competitive bidding (ICB) - Exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01/03/06 - benefit of exemption denied in adjudication on the ground that in the projects, the requisite quantum of power has been tied up or that the projects has been awarded through tariff based competitive bidding - Held that:- The goods supplied to Kawai Thermal Power Project, Sagardighi Thermal Power Project and Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project are against international competitive bidding even though in respect of these projects, the contracts were awarded through tariff based competitive biding. During the period of dispute, Sl. No. 91 of the table to the exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE readwith condition No. 19 and Sl. No. 336 of the table to the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17/03/12 readwith condition No. 41 of this notification, exempted all the goods supplied against international competition bidding from whole of the duty excise leviable thereon and the condition to which this exemption was available was that the goods if imported into India are fully exempt from Customs duty. There is no dispute that the goods, if imported into India, would be exempt from Customs duty in terms of Sl. No. 400 of the Notification No. 21/2002-CUS readwith condition No. 86, as in terms of this condition, the appellant have produced the required certificates from Joint Secretary to the Government of India. When exemption is available to the appellant in terms of two Sl. Nos. 91 as well as 91B Notification No. 6/2006-CE and 336 as well as 338 of the table to Notification No. 12/2012-CE and the appellant satisfy the conditions of the Notification No. 6/2006-CE/(Sl. No. 91) and Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sl. No. 336), the exemption in terms of this Sl. No. cannot be denied, as exemption under this Sl. No. is available to any good supplied by a manufacturer in India against international competitive bidding. Therefore, the impugned order denying the exemption in respect of the three projects, mentioned above, is not sustainable. Even if the General Fabrication Structures, Auto welded Beams and Boxes cleared by the appellant are meant to be used as Supporting Structure for some machinery, the same would have to be treated as component parts of that machinery as the description of goods against Sl. No. 91B of Notification No. 6/2006-CE, Sl. No. 338 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE covers all components whether finished or not and raw materials for the manufacture of the items of machinery, prime movers, instruments, apparatus, appliances, control gear, transmission equipments etc. In view of this, the impugned order denying exemption to the goods supplied to Prayagraj Super Thermal Mega Power Project is also not sustainable. Decided in favour of assessee.
|