TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Tribunal and was decided in favour of the assessee in many cases - In the case of CORDS CABLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., JAIPUR [2016 (9) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was held that the denial of exemption on the ground of classification shown under Customs Notification is 9801 is not sustainable - the denial of the benefit of notification for good supplied against International Competitive Bidding is not justifiable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/55544/2014-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 57748 /2017 - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the appellant Shri S K Bansal, DR for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 32/2014 dated 07.08.2014. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of fabricated items of steel and various parts of machinery falling under Chapter 73, 84 and 86 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period May 2012 to December 2012, the appellant supplied various goods at NIL rate of duty under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption to all goods falling under Chapter heading No. 9801 of the Customs Tariff Act read with condition No. 86 of the said notification. Therefore, the duty of ₹ 1,33,81,142/- was demanded in respect of all the above three Mega Power Projects for the period May 2012 to December 2012 and penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved by the impugned under by the lower authority the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Ms Surbhi Sinha Learned Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri S.K. Bansal Learned Representative of the Department. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of items supplied for Mega Power projects covered by the Notification No. 12/2012, the benefit has been denied only for the reason that the goods supplied are not covered by the description in Serial No. 338. She submitted that the entry is required to be interpreted liberally. She also relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of GANGES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF E.EX., RAIPUR reported as 2014(308) E.L.T. 106 (Tribunal Delhi) in which the benefit has been allowed for similar goods i.e. Fabricated Structures for Manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he two Mega Power Projects can be considered as components which are used for manufacture of other goods used for the power project. Under similar circumstances, we note that the Tribunal in the case of GANGES INTERNATIONAL has extended the benefit of notification 6/2006 as well as 12/2012. The Tribunal in the above case observed follows: 7. As regards, the goods supplied to Prayagraj Super Thermal Mega Power Project, there is not dispute that the project is a mega power project awarded to a developer through tariff based competitive bidding and the appellant have claimed exemption in terms of Sl. No. 91B of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E and Sl. No. 338 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The Commissioner has given finding that the requisite conditions for this exemption are satisfied inasmuch as a certificate by an officer not below in the rank of Chief Engineer certifying that the said goods are meant for setting up of said mega power project and also an undertaking from Chief Executive officer of the project to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, that the goods would be used only in the said mega power project and in the event of non-compliance of this exemption the duty would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (6) 400 9801 Goods required for setting up of any Mega Power Project, that is to:-a) an inter-State thermal power plant of a capacity of 1000 MW or more; or b) an inter-State hydel power plant of 500 mw or more, as certified by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India is the Ministry of Power. Nil Nil 86 The exemption against S. No. 400 is subject to Condition 86 which reads as under:- a) if an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power certifies that- i) the power purchasing State has constituted the Regulatory Commission with full powers to fix traffic; ii) the power purchasing State undertakes, in principle, to privatise in distribution in all cities, in that State, each of which has a population of more than one million, within a period to be fixed by the Ministry of Power; and iii) The power purchasing State has agreed to provide recourse to that State s share of Central Plan allocations and other devolutions towards discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
