9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/135/2010 dated 31/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I, wherein the Ld. Commissioner upheld the Order-in-Original No. P-I/Divn. IV/Reb/57/2010 dated 01/04/2010 and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant have supplied the goods to the SEZ Developers without payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the supply to the SEZ Developer is prior to 31-12-2008. It cannot be treated as export and liable to pay 10% of value of goods. Accordingly refund of said paid amount was rejected vide order dated 01-04-2010. The appeal against the said original order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Hence the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Mehul Jivani, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iemens Ltd. Vs Commr of C.Ex., Navi Mumbai - [2015 (321) ELT 493 (Tri.-Mum.) M/s. Dee Development Engineering Ltd. Vs Commr of C.Ex., Faridabad - [2013-TIOL-831-CESTAT-DEL] He submits that in view of above judgments issue is not res-integra and the supply made to the SEZ Developers, is export of goods and accordingly the duty paid by them required to be refund alongwith interest. 4. On other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove cited judgments, I am of the considered view that supply made to the SEZ Developers is an export and no duty is payable. Therefore, the duty paid by the appellant is required to be refunded by the department to the appellant. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Dictated in court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
