Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 11 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/88887/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RPS/NSK/193/2013 dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent Appearance: Shri M. Neerav, Advocate for Appellant Dr. B.S. Meena, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 14.02.2014 Date of Decision: 14.02.2014 ORDER NO. Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. RPS/NSK/193/2013 dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik. Vide the impugned order, a duty demand of Rs.45,154/- along with interest has been confirmed against the appellant M/s KOSO India Pvt. Ltd. formerly known as M/s Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. by denying the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006.
2. The appellant is a sub-contractor and supplied Globe Control Valves to M/s Essar Offshore Subsea Ltd. and M/s KP Engineers & contractors, who were awarded contracts by ONGC under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) Procedure in connection with the petroleum operations undertaken. The contracts also mentioned the appellant as sub-contractor and that the contract is awarded under ICB Procedure. Accordingly, the appellant took the benefit of aforesaid notification which was rejected by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the appellant did not produce essentiality certificate from the contractor Directorate General of Hydro Carbons (DGHS) for the supplies made by them as envisaged under Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this issue was examined by the Tribunal in appellants own case for the previous period and vide Order No. A/983-984/13/EB/C-II dated 8.11.2013 this Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 and the condition to produce essentiality certificate would apply only to importers of the goods. Therefore, in the present appeal also, the benefit be extended and the appeal allowed.
4. The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue confirms these facts.
5. Considering the decision of this Tribunal in the appellants own case vide order dated 8.11.2013 (supra), in the present case also, we follow the same and hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE and allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
3