TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable only to the imported goods is absurd as Clause (vii) of Rule 6(6) has to be read alongwith provision of Rule 6(6) and cannot be interpreted in isolation. It is also noted that their goods have been supplied under International Competitive Bidding and M/s ABB Ltd., were awarded a contract by DMRC for supply of various items. In support, certificate of DMRC and certificate of ABB Ltd., have been produced on record and in fact are not disputed by the Revenue - The fact that the clearances were made in terms of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 do not stands disputed by the Revenue. In that scenario the benefit of Rule 6(6)(vii) has to be extended to the assessee and no demand can be confirmed against them. Appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the demand of ₹ 45,53,600/- calculated @ 10% of the price of the exempted goods, for the period from October, 2007 to January, 2008. He also confirmed appropriate interest and imposed the penalty of equal amount. 2. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that considering the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the facts of the case, which revealed that supply of the goods was to M/s. ABB Ltd. who were the International Competitive Bidders in relation to the Project Phase-II of DMRC and the said fact having been confirmed under certificate dated 24.08.2009 issued by DMRC the authorities could not have denied the benefit of the said provisions and, therefore, could not have conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old that the said decision of the Tribunal decides the objection raised by the Revenue in favour of the assessee. 4. We also note that their goods have been supplied under International Competitive Bidding and M/s ABB Ltd., were awarded a contract by DMRC for supply of various items. In support, certificate of DMRC and certificate of ABB Ltd., have been produced on record and in fact are not disputed by the Revenue. The Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE vs. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2013 (297) ELT 8 (Mad.) and maintained in 2016 (335) ELT A27, has observed as under:- We do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the CESTAT base on a factual finding and there was no material placed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
