Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 131 - CESTAT BANGALORERecovery of CENVAT Credit - demand was made on the ground that the appellants are supplying excisable goods to SEZ developer, which is exempted under the Notification No.4/2004-ST and the appellant is required to reverse 10% of the value of the exempted excisable goods, in terms of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- From the amendment by Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2012, it is settled that the appellants are not required to pay any amount under Rule 6 in respect of supplies made to SEZ Developers, the appellant is not required to pay any amount in terms of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Also, reliance can be placed in the case of SAINT-GOBAIN GYPROC INDIA LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE THANE – I [2019 (2) TMI 1557 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that notwithstanding a subsequent amendment in rule 6(6) to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to include developer of special economic zones within the escapement covered of rule 6 of the said Rules, the categorization as exports would itself suffice to exclude the applicability of the liability prescribed therein. Accordingly, demand of ₹ 1,97,01,669/- and corresponding interest and penalty are not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|