Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 848 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRecovery - challenge to impugned order - the respondent has passed the impugned order without taking note of the Circular issued by the Commissioner, dated 11.02.2010 - the respondent also did not take into consideration the Notification No.25/2016, dated 14.06.2016, whereby, the earlier Notification No.67/95, dated 16.03.1995 was amended by substituting the words "Free Trade Zone" into "Special Economic Zone" - Held that: - it is seen that though the respondent has extracted the objections given by the petitioner in the impugned order, wherein, the petitioner has referred to the notification as well as the Circular of the Commissioner. However, there is no reference to the same and the impugned order has been passed totally on a different ground and by observing that the clearances to Special Economic Zone are not mentioned in the ExCus Notification No.25/2016, dated 14.06.2016. However, what the respondent should have seen is, as to the effect of the notification dated 14.06.2016, apart from the circular, dated 11.02.2010, wherein, it has been stated that though the SEZ are not listed in the proviso (i) to (vi) of Notification No.67/95 as per CBEC Circular 29/06, dated 27.12.2006, supplies from DTA to SEZ are exempted from excise duty under Rule 19 and such supplies shall also be eligible for rebate under Rule 19. Therefore, it is stated that clearances to SEZ are to be treated as exports and whether the unit clears the goods under Rule 18 or 19, no duty accrues to the Government. Thus, the respondent having not taken into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner which are very relevant to the facts of the case, this Court is justified in interfering with the impugned order. In the light of the above, the impugned order calls for interference with a further direction to redo the entire matter, after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner, some of which, have been noted above Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|