9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, the Ld. Lower appellate authority has upheld the duty demand of Rs.9,55,304/- along with interest thereon confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 28/06/2013 against the appellant M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Nashik, by denying the benefit of Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. The adjudicating authority has further imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the appellant had supplied Electrically Operated Travelling (EOT) cranes to NTPC, BARH Super Thermal Power Project as a sub-contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in an identical matter pertaining to Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. vide order No. A/983-984/13/EB/C-II dated 08/11/2013 had considered this issue and held that if the goods are supplied, under a contract awarded under International Competitive Bidding procedure, by the sub-contractor, the benefit of excise duty exemption cannot be denied so long as the similar goods imported under exempt from customs duty. The ratio of the above case would apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay. 4. The Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. However, he confirms that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power. The said certificate is available on record and it is clearly stated that BARH Super Thermal Power Project has a capacity of 1000 MW or more and satisfies all other requirements for grant of exemption. Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant has complied with the terms and conditions of the exemption notification. In the Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. case (cited supra), a more or less the identical issues arose for consideration and this Tribunal held that if the supply is made under International Competitive Bidding procedure by a domestic manufacturer the benefit of exemption under Notification No.6/2006 would be available. The factual position in the present case as also those of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
