Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1066 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - demand on the premise that in terms of Section 2(m) of SEZ Act clearance of goods or providing service from DTA to SEZ unit or SEZ developer constitutes "export" and the appellants had not reversed an amount equal to 10% of value of the finished goods from the cenvat account, at the time of clearance from the factory in respect of the goods cleared to SEZ Developers and SEZ Co-Developers - whether supplies made to SEZ developer is export and consequently whether the appellant is liable to pay 10% value of the goods supplied to SEZ developer? Held that: - much water was flown on the issue and it was consistently held that the supplies made to SEZ developer is indeed 'export', consequently no payment is required i.e. equal to 10% value of the goods in terms of Rule 6(3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules - reliance was placed in the case of SUJANA METAL PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that the definition of the term “export” under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term “export” under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export, supplies made to SEZ are held to be “export” provisions of Rule 6 of CCR does not arise at all. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|