2013 (7) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eriod of dispute in this case is Jan. 2008 to September, 2008. During the period of dispute, Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which provides that provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules would not be applicable in certain cases, did not cover to supply the SEZ developers. In this case, the respondent during the period of dispute had manufactured certain finished pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), these appeals were filed by Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The issue involved in this case is no longer res integra and the same stands decided by a series of judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tribunal-Bang.), Surya Roshini Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak reported in 2012 (285 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X