TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claim which was earlier made under N/N. 108/95 to the correct Notification being N/N. 6/2006-CE. Thus, there is no case of any retrospective claim - Secondly, N/N. 6/2006 is of dated 01/03/2006 and the clearance were made thereafter and on this count also there is no question of any retrospective applicability of the said Notification - SCN unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2346/2009-EX[DB] - A/70233/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 1-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri V. Swaminathan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.), A.R. for the Department Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The appellant R.S. Infraprojects is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernational Competitive Bidding process, being the named contractor for supply of 765 KV Switchyard Package (one among the package associated with the said project). The said Project Authority Certificate further mentions in para-2 that the said supply of 765 KV Switchyard Package associated with Sipat Super Thermal Power Project, Stage-I (3x 600MW) and Stage-II (2 x 500 MW) awarded to Areva T D Systems Limited India, New Delhi. The said certificate further says that names of sub contractors already finalized a!ongwith items to be supplied with quantities, enclosed as Annexure-1. Further provides, the names of other sub contractors will be added subsequently in line with para of Handbook of Vol.-1 (2004-09). It is further case of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepted retrospectively and can be given a prospective effect only. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and vide Order-in-Original dated 15 th May, 2009 learned Commissioner was pleased to confirm the show cause notice confirming demand of along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed under Rule 25 of CER, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Heard the parties. 5. Having considered the rival contentions we find that in the show cause notice no objection have been raised by Revenue regarding allowability of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE. Neither any objection is raised as to the eligibility of the appellant under the said Notification No. 6/2006. The only objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
