TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/25867/2013-SM - 22432/2017 - Dated:- 12-10-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Shruthi, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Deputy Commissioner (AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., Chemicals falling under chapter sub heading No.38244090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are operating under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0% of the value of the clearances made to SEZ Developer without payment of duty along with interest and penalty. The original authority after following the due process of law confirmed the demand and aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. She further submitted that SEZ unit is treated at par with the SEZ Developer and the goods cleared to SEZ Developer are not exempted goods. She further submitted that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai) d) S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 105 (Tri.-Mumbai) e) Pace Seating Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore Final Order No.20607/2016 dated 02.08.2016 f) Sobha Developers Ltd. V. CCE, Bangalore Final Order No.20643/2016 dated 18.08.2016 g) Rinac India Ltd. V. CCE, Bangalore Final Order No.21104/2017 dated 24.07.2017 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Courts cited supra and therefore, by following the decisions of the jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
