Case Details: Commissioner of Gst and Central Excise Versus JSW Steel Ltd. (2025) 30 Centax 39 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Navanjay Mahapatra, Dhruv Sharma, Rajendra Singh Rana, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Visalaksh Kumar, Udit Jain, Ajitesh Dayal Singh, Aadesh Ramadorai, Advs. & Vishnu Kant, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a sub-contractor, supplied goods to a main contractor engaged in the execution of a Mega Power Project. The main contractor had participated in International Competitive Bidding (ICB). The petitioner claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., specifically under Sl. No. 91 read with Condition No. 19, stating that the goods supplied for the Mega Power Project qualified under Customs Tariff Heading 98.01 and were eligible for exemption from customs duties under Sl. No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Department denied the benefit on the ground that the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. was not available to sub-contractors. Aggrieved by the denial, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai.
The Tribunal held that the petitioner was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. as the goods were supplied to a main contractor who had participated in ICB for setting up a Mega Power Project. It further held that the goods were covered under Heading 98.01 and eligible for customs duty exemption under Sl. No. 400 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., thereby fulfilling Condition No. 19 of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The Department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed on merits. The Court, however, kept the question of law open. Pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.
List of Cases Reviewed
- JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 30 Centax 38 (Tri. – Chen.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
