CGST, CCE & ST, Alwar, CE & ST-Udaipur Versus Gemscab Industries Ltd., Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1201 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 6-9-2018
E/COD/50750/2018, Appeal No. E/52198/2018-DB, E/51800/2018-DB – FINAL ORDER NO. 53013-53014/2018
Central Excise
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Shri H.C. Saini, DR for the Appellant
Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Anil Choudhary:
1. The delay of 5 days is condoned as sufficiently explained. As the issue is covered and with the consent of both the parties matter is taken up for final hearing along with the Appeal No. E/51800/2018 CCE V/s Om Met
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
under International Competitive Bidding. The goods were cleared by Appellant (sub-contractor) to NTPC (for Mega Power Project) on the basis of proper documents which included letter of the Joint Secretary to Government of India dated 29.06.2006 addressed to General Manager, NTPC, New Delhi.
iii. However, the demand was confirmed raised under the Show Cause notice dated 21.09.2007.
iv. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the respondent under the reasoning that power cables falling under tariff item 8544 of the Excise Tariff and supplied to Mega Power project are eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 91 of the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and the requirements under the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the Joint Secretary to Government of India.
iii. However, the demand was confirmed raised under the Show Cause notice dated 12.04.2011.
iv. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the respondent under the reasoning that Gates and Gate parts falling under Chapter 73 of the Excise Tariff and supplied to Mega Power Project are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and the requirements under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 are not required to be satisfied.
5. Heard Shri H.C. Saini, Ld. DR for the Appellant as well as Ms. Sukriti Das, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.
6. Having heard the rival contentions we are satisfied that the appellant have
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =