9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1831 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - goods supplied to SEZ Developers during the period 2005-08 - export or not - applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra as the same is settled in various judgments including the judgment cited by the Learned Counsel in the case of Lotus Power Gears (P) Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 998 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . The Tribunal has taken consistent view that the supply made to the SEZ Developers is considered as export even prior to Notification No. 15/2008-C.E. (N.T.) applying the provisions of SEZ Act 2005. The impugned order is not sustainable hence the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Whether demand under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is maintainable in respect of goods supplied to SEZ Developers during the period 2005-08. Analysis: The issue in this case revolved around the maintainability of a demand under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning goods supplied to SEZ Developers between 2005-08. The appellant's representative argued that previous judgments of the Tribunal had established that such demands were not sustainable even before the amendment to Rule 6 on 31-12-2008. Reference was made to a specific judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III v. Lotus Power Gears (P) Ltd. The Revenue's representative, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides and a review of the records, the Tribunal found that the issue had been settled through various judgments, including the one cited by the appellant's counsel regarding Lotus Power Gears (P) Ltd. The Tribunal had consistently held that supplies to SEZ Developers were to be treated as exports even before the relevant notification. By applying the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, the Tribunal concluded that the demand in question was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was pronounced in court on 21-3-2018.
|
