TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of the Notification is satisfied and there is no justification for denying the exemption notification to the appellant - waiver of pre-deposit allowed - E/20/2010 - S-364/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 25-4-2012 - Shri S.K. Gaule, Dr. D.M. Misra, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate and B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Agrawal, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : S.K. Gaule, Member (T)]. - The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,46,63,302/- (Rupees One Forty Six Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Two) and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.1 The applicant supplied TMT Bars falling under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd. for supplying of FE-415 Grade Reinforcement Steel of assorted sizes in implementing the initial setting up of the project vide Ref. NPCL/HQ/PAC/001-A dated 6-9-2007 of the Chief Executive Officer, Nagarjuna Power Corporation Ltd. and the project was duly certified by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Power vide letter F. No. A-118/2003-IFC (Vol. II), dated 11-4-2007. The goods which were supplied by the appellant i.e. TMT Bars falling under Chapter 72 are not covered under Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 in as much as they are not included in the list of goods specified under the said exemption Notification. The goods could not be classified under Chapter No. 98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other materials which will cover TMT bars also. TMT bars are necessary for erection, installation and commissioning of the plant, machinery etc. and these are to be treated as parts, components, accessories of the machinery. 3.3 The contention is that they are covered by the provisions of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 also. So far as the conditions stipulated therein are concerned, the Project Authority has certified the parameters which are necessary to avail of the exemption under the said Notification, thus the condition are fulfilled. The contention is that Notification No. 91/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 which was applicable for holder of Advance Licence was not acceptable in such cases of supplies to the project cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Sarita Steel and Industries Ltd. (supra) strong prima facie case is in their favour and the balance of convenience is in their favour. In support of their contention they have also placed reliance on the following cases :- (a) Northern Doors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 450 (All.) (b) J.N. Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. CEGAT - 1989 (05) LCX 0031 = 1991 (53) E.L.T. 543 (Cal.) 4.1 The contention of ld. AR is that the conditions of Notification are to be strictly construed. In support of their contention they have placed reliance on the following cases :- (a) Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE C, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) (b) CCE, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating authority has sought to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006 only on two ground i.e. appellant has not participated in the international competitive bidding and goods falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act cannot be considered as goods which can be relatable to chapter 98.01 to get the benefit of customs Notification No. 21/2002 and nor the appellant nor BHEL registered for any project imports. Goods imported for mega power project plant to be erected by BHEL is eligible for exemption from payment of duty. Appellants supplied the goods to bidders of International Competitive Bidding, the condition of the Notification is satisfied and there is no justification for denying the exemption notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
