TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CCE Hyderabad[2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], any inputs and the services cleared to Special Economic Zone or Special Economic Zone developers up to 31.12.08 is to be considered as cleared to the developers and not only to Special Economic Zone units and subsequent amendment in Rule 6(6) has to be considered as clarificatory in nature - The substituted sub-rule 6(6Xi) is enforced from the date the 2004-Rules came into force – Appeal allowed - Decided in favor of Assessee - Appeal No.E/1408/09 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri S.R. Dixit, Adv For the Respondent: Shri P.N. Sarvaiya, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per:-Mr. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit that in an identical issue Hon ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of UOI Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Ors. 2013-TIOL-384-HC-CHATTISGARH-CX has held so. He would submit that the Hon ble High Court has dismissed the tax appeal filed by the UOI and held that the amendments carried out to rule 6 by Notification No.50/08-CE NT is of charificatory nature. 4. Ld. D.R. would reiterate the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find, as correctly pointed out by the ld. counsel, that the issue involved in this case is regarding the payment of an amount of 10% of the value of the exempted goods cleared to Special Economic Zone d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ developers / promoters. e. Appeals of the assessee deserve to be allowed and the appeals of the Department deserve to be rejected. f. Incidentally, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of invoking extended period of limitation for demand of amounts and imposition of penalties does not arise. 7. The above said our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Chattisgarh wherein their lordships have held as under. It is clear from the nature of the excise duty as it has been traditionally understood to be duty only on the manufacture of those goods that are to be consumed within the country and not on the goods to be exported. This is also framework of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumed in the country, whereas a customs duty is imposed on the product that is manufactured within the country but is to be used outside the country i.e. exported as well as manufactured outside the country and brought into the country for use i.e. imported; (b)The amended rule is merely clarificatory, corrects an obvious mistakes, removes discrimination between developers and units in special area zones. It merely clarifies or explains the existing law of providing non-imposition of excise duty on goods that are held to be export under the Special Area Zone Act; (c) The substituted sub-rule 6(6Xi) is enforced from the date the 2004-Rules came into force. 53. In view of above, both the substantial questions of law are decided against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
