TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion clearly laid down that the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in the case of excisable goods removed, without payment of duty, to a unit in SEZ. The appellant has established that, during the material period, M/s. Wipro Ltd. were maintaining a manufacturing unit in the SEZ. Apparently, the lower authorities erroneously considered them as SEZ developer - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 483/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2012 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Cherian Punnoose, advocate For the Respondent: Mr S. Tali, Deputy Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against a demand raised on the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submits at the outset that the surviving demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 6 (3) of the CCR 2004 is in respect of the goods cleared by the appellant to two parties viz. (1) M/s. Wipro Ltd., Electronic City, Bangalore and (2) M/s. L T Hitech City Ltd., Visakhapatnam. He submits that both these companies have been treated as SEZ developers. However, in respect of M/s. Wipro Ltd., he disputes this and submits that the clearances in question were made to a manufacturing unit of that company set up in the SEZ as permitted by the Development Commissioner. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to the Development Commissioners permission dated 25.07.2006 issued to M/s. Wipro Ltd. for setting up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Pradesh and therefore the said decision may not have precedential value. In answer to a query from the bench, however, it is submitted that the Hon ble High Court has not stayed the operation of the Tribunal s decision. 5. After carefully considering the submissions, I am inclined to follow the case law cited before me in respect of the demand raised on the appellant in relation to the clearances made to M/s. L T Hi-tech City Ltd. (SEZ developer). Those clearances cannot be treated as clearances of exempted goods and must be considered as exports. Consequently the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the CCR 2004 are inapplicable. In respect of the clearances made by the appellant to M/s. Wipro Ltd., the demand is liable to be set aside in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
