TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cleared by sub-contractors are not entitled for exemption on the ground they are not the bidders, the very purpose of the Notification would be defeated because the main contractor will be having hundreds of sub-contractors in Mega Projects - the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE and 91/2004-Cus for the goods supplied to the Project Implementing authority for the said project - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 1748 of 2011 - A/52123/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Z.U Alvi, Advocate for the appellants Shri Yogesh Agawal, A.R. for the respondent ORDER Per M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct while the appellant claimed exemption of their final product; the Advance Authorisation issued by the DGFT was subsequent to the clearance effected ; the AC Condenser and Fin Fan Cooler Assembly supplied were rated 80 MW while the project was of 77 MW capacity. The appellant had not taken part in International Competitive Bidding (ICB). 3. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant draws our attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority as also to the Notification No.6/2006-CE and No.91/2004-Cus. It is his submission that Notification No.91/2004-Cus exempts all the materials required for manufacturing of final goods from the whole of duty of Customs if they are for the purpose of supply of goods to Power and Refinery Projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Cooled Condenser and Fin Fan Cooler, the exemption is not eligible. It is his also submission that appellant had never participated in ICB for the said project. Hence is not eligible for claiming the benefit of the Notification. 4. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the issue is regarding whether appellant is eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No.91/2004-Cus and No.6/2006-CE in respect of the goods supplied to Power Project implemented by bidding through an International Competitive Bidding (ICB). 5. The undisputed facts are that M/s OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. floated ICB as project implmenting authority for installation of 77 MW coal based captive power pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er are exempted subject to condition 64 of the Notification. Condition 64 reads as follows :- 64. If the goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India. It is not in dispute that the goods imported for supply to Mega Projects are entitled to whole duty exemption under Customs Tariff Act. The next thing to be examined is whether the goods supplied are against International Competitive Bidding. The appellants are a sub-contractor of M/s. BHEL. M/s. BHEL is executing the Mega Project for Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Project by International Bidding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the sub-contractor will ensure that supplies made eventually reach the project site. The ratio of the above case is clearly applicable to the present case. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any. 7. Yet in another case in the case of Sarita Steel (supra), the very same Notification No.6/2006-CE was in dispute on the ground that the appellant therein was denied the said benefit of Notification having not participated in ICB, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CST (supra), the Bench set aside the impugned order after reproducing the clause of Notification No.6/6006-CE in the Final Order. 8. In view of the factual position of the case in hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
