TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order complete waiver of the dues demanded in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/93/2009 - 865/2009 - Dated:- 1-5-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, M.V. Ravindran, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. - In terms of the impugned order, the amount of Rs. 1,53,84,947/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Seven only) is to be pre-deposited. This amount is 10% of the value of the goods supplied by the appellant from their units to Developers/Promoters of Special Economic Zone. The appellants supplied their products to the develope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 2005. In the said Act, export is defined in the following manner : Export means..... supplying goods or providing services from the domestic tariff to a unit or developer..... In the same Act, developer has also been defined. Section 26(1)(c) of the said Act, 2005, is reproduced below : Exemption from any duty of Excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944 or the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1985) or any other law for the time being in force, on goods brought from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Special Economic Zone or Unit, to carry on the authorized operations by the Developer or Entrepreneur 4. Exemption would be available even to developer. Further, our attention was also invited to Rule 27 of the SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The learned SDR stated that the amendment had been carried out only on 31-12-2008 and it cannot be have retrospective effect against the period involved in the impugned order is prior to it. 6. On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that in terms of the various provisions pointed out by the learned Advocate, the SEZ Act, 2005 provides for the exemption of supplies made to a developer. Moreover, in our view, the amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be taken to be clarificatory in nature as the word substituted has been used. Further, it was stated that the demand made can also be treated as tax in terms of the interpretation of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. v. Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
