TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m basic customs duty as well as additional customs duty in terms of SI. No. 214 of the table to the notification subject to the fulfillment of the certain conditions prescribed - condition No. 29 referred of the Notification No. 21/02-CUS (SI. No. 214) regarding production of a prescribed certificate for Directorate General of Hydro Carbons is not applicable to the sub-contractors who are domestic manufacturers. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Stay Application No.61158 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2014 - Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) And Rakesh Kumar, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri O P Agarwal, CA For the Respondent : Shri R K Grover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ministry of Petroleum Natural Gas certifying that imported goods are required for petroleum operations to be undertaken by ONGC under petroleum exportion licences or mining leases issued by Government of India or any State Government on nomination basis is produced before Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs. However, it is also provided that where the subcontractor is an Indian company, this condition would not apply. In this case, the exemption was denied on the ground that the required certificate from the Directorate General of Hydro Carbons was not produced. It is on this basis that the duty demand of ₹ 71,492/- was confirmed against the appellant alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied, that as provided in condition No. 29 of the notification, this condition is not applicable in the case of sub-contractor who is an Indian company, that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct, that the issue involved in this case stands decided in the appellant's favour by judgment of Bombay Bench of the Tribunal's in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik reported in E/1552/2011 E/85625/2013. and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri R.K. Grover, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant had supplied the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
