2011 (9) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sabrina Cano, JDR, for the revenue Mr. K.S. Ramesh, Advocate, for the respondent P.G. Chacko In this appeal filed by the department, a short question to be considered is whether any demand could have been raised on the respondent for the period of dispute under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on the ground that the finished goods supplied by them to SEZ units during the said p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... December 2008. It had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on them. Both the demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the clearances affected by the respondent to SEZ developers should be treated as exports within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Customs Act and consequentially the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 were not applicable. Hence the pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X