The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that a domestic manufacturer under International Competitive Bidding is entitled to duty exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. if the goods are exempt from customs duties when imported, rejecting the view that the benefit is restricted to importers.
Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed in favour of appellants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Excise Appeal No. 86993 of 2016
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CD/159/M-II/2016 dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)]
KEC International Ltd. .… Appellant 6th Floor, Dr Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400 030.
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III …. Respondent 3rd & 4th Floor, Vardaan Centre, MIDC, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)- 400 604.
APPEARANCE:
Shri Mehul Jivani, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Ranjan Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. A/85248/2026
Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Per: S.K. MOHANTY
Heard both sides and perused the case records.
E/86993/2016
2
appellants under the said Notification dated 01.03.2006 was denied by the department on the ground that the condition prescribed in Entry No.91 of the said notification has not been fulfilled by the appellants. The original order dated 10.10.2013, denying the benefit of exemption was appealed against before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), which was upheld vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. In support of such order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods in question need to be exempted from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and additional duty of customs (CVD); and that the appellants have failed to produce any undertaking issued by the CEO of the approved project to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, to the effect that the said goods will be used only in the said project and not for any other purpose and in the event of non-compliance of such condition, the project developer would pay the duty, which would have been leviable at the time of clearance of goods, but for this exemption. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
E/86993/2016
3
exempted from BCD and CVD should also qualify for the exemption from payment of central excise duty. It is no doubt a fact that the goods in question supplied under ICB by the appellants are also exempted from payment of the duties of customs vide Serial No. 400 of the notification No.21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002. In other words, procurement of goods under ICB process, whether through imported or domestic sources, equal treatment should be given for both the categories inasmuch as such process under ICB is to enable level playing field for domestic manufacturer, to provide competitiveness.
(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial)
(M.M. Parthiban) Member (Technical)
SM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. is available to a domestic manufacturer supplying under International Competitive Bidding even if the goods are not imported b
Whether the condition in Entry No. 91 requiring goods to be exempt from Basic Customs Duty applies only to importers or extends to domestic manufacturers.
Whether the phrase goods when imported into India in Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. restricts the benefit solely to importers of goods.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Ahmedabad-IIIRelied on¶4
M/s Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Ahmedabad-III, 2019 (5) TMI 869 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Kent Intro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ExciseRelied on¶4
Kent Intro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2014 (301) E.L.T. (84) (Tri.)
2016 (331) E.L.T. (77) (Bom.)Relied on¶4
3 provisions across 3 enactments
KEC International Ltd.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
S.K. Mohanty
M.M. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a central excise matter before CESTAT.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
