##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

-

REGIONAL BENCH COURT No. III

Excise Appeal No. 40437 of 2018 - - -

(Arising out of Order in Appeal No.270/2017 (CTA II) dated 30.09.2017 -

passed by Commissioner of Service Tax [Appeals I], Newry Towers, 2054/I, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040)

M/s.GE T & D India Ltd. …. Appellant (formerly known as Alstom T&D India Ltd.), FSSC Building, 19/1, GST Road,

Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043.

VERSUS

The Commissioner of GST &

Central Excise … Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai 600 040. APPEARANCE :

Shri Joseph Prabakar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Selvakumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM :

HON’BLE SHRI P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No.40425/2026

2

DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION :25.03.2026

Per: Shri P. Dinesha

- -

This Appeal is filed against the Order in Appeal -

No.270/2017 (CTA II) dated 30.09.2017 passed by the -

Commissioner (Appeals I), Chennai and the only issue that -

arises for our consideration is, ‘whether the non production of certificate from the Nodal Ministry could result in denial of

benefit of Exemption Notification ?’

2. Heard Shri Joseph Prabakar, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri M. Selvakumar, ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent and perused the documents placed on record including the judicial precedents filed during the course

of arguments.

3. Facts are not in dispute, the Appellant who is the manufacture of SF Gas Circuit Breakers, had filed a declaration under Rue 173B claiming exemption in respect of 123 KV SF6 Circuit Breakers and parts/components of the same and availed

-

NIL rate of duty under Exemption Notification No.108/95 CE dated 28.08.1995. During the CERA Audit it was the case of the Revenue, that the Audit team having observed that the

3

Appellant had filed the certificate from the Project Authority itself [Chief Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board] instead of certificate from the Nodal Ministry and accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dt. 03.08.1998 came to be issued which was adjudicated later on by the Adjudicating Authority who felt it proper to drop the proposed demand however, imposing a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for some contravention. Aggrieved by the above dropping of demand, it appears that the Revenue preferred an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority who, after hearing, having allowed the Revenue’s Appeal, has given rise to the present

Appeal before us.

4. At the outset, we find that the above issue has already been considered and laid to rest by the jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CCE Pondicherry Vs Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (297) ELT 8 (Mad.) as affirmed by Apex Court reported in 2016 (335) ELT A27 (SC)] the Hon’ble High Court in an Appeal arising from the order of CESTAT Bench, has

observed as under :

“6. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the CESTAT, who agreed with the assessee’s contention by following the decisions of the Tribunal in Toyo Engineering India Ltd v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 315. The Tribunal pointed out that it was not the case of the Department that the goods had not been supplied to the projects

4

financed by the International Organisation. The CESTAT further pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that the goods were used in any other project other than in implementation of the Golden Quadrilateral Project; considering that the goods had admittedly been used in the project and after the completion of the projects, the goods supplied to the various sub-contractors were entrusted to retain the goods supplied could not stand in the way of granting the exemption under the Notification. Further there was no evidence that the goods in question were used in any other project after the implement