TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e because the issue which has attained finality is being re-agitated without filing an appeal against order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) - In the case of rebate and refunds on exports the policy of the government has been to grant such benefits when goods are supplied to SEZ. The same logic should apply for supply to EOUs also - Following decision of Essar Steel Ltd. Versus Union of India [2009 (11) TMI 141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/S/40422/13 & ST/40581/13 - FINAL ORDER No.40353/2013 - Dated:- 30-8-2013 - Shri Mathew John, J. For the Appellant : Shri S. Sridhar, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt. (AR) JUDGEMENT 1. After hearing both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first round. Against this adjudication order No.14/10 dt. 2.8.2010, the Appellant filed appeal with Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Shilpha Copper Wire Industries and ordered that refund was to be sanctioned considering the supplies made to 100% EOU as exports and the matter was remanded back as per para 7 8 of the order which are reproduced below :- 7. The issue has been answered by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Commisioner of Central Excise Vs Shilpa Copper Wire Industries 100% EOU in Tax Appeal No.968/2008 [AIT-2010-145-HC]. The Hon ble High Court of Gujarat, in the above case had placed reliance upon the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gue that Appellants were not eligible for refund :- a) BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs UOI 0 2007 (211) ELT 23 (Mad.) b) Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 375 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the second round, further relied on the decision of Tricholite Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Gurgaon - 2012 (282) ELT 468 (Tri.-Del) and allowed the appeal of Revenue holding that refund granted by the adjudicating authority in second round is not legal and proper and is to be recalled. 6. Arguing for the Appellant, Ld. Counsel submits that it was precisely the issue which is now decided against the Appellant which was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the first round of litigation and that order had attaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the Department regarding liability of the goods to levy of Export Duty, academic since this provision exempts the goods brought in by the Special Economic Zone Unit from all levies and duties. Since the duty is leviable on the goods, it would be irrational to contend that the export from the Domestic Tariff Area to the Special Economic Zone should be taxed while the inward movement of the goods from the Domestic Tariff Area to the Special Economic Zone, would be exempt. 7. Arguing for Revenue the Ld A. R. argues that the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) was to examine whether the appellant was eligible for the refund. In argues that in view of the decisions cited the appellants were not eligible for the disputed portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
