Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mahavir Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

2016 (2) TMI 199 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - whether supplies made to SEZ Developer for the period prior to 31.12.2008 will attract the provisions of Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules or not? - whether the appellant is liable to pay 10% of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ Developer in case no separate accounts have been maintained in respect of dutiable goods and goods supplied without payment of duty? - Held that:- The very same issue was considered in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2009 (5) TMI 64 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ll prevail over the definition of term “export” under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export.

Since both during the period prior to and w.e.f 10/02/2006, the supplies made to SEZ are held to be “export”. The application of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules for recovery of amounts on goods supplied to SEZ units in terms of Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/CCR, 2004 does not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/2091/10-Mum - Dated: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alling under Chapter 7216.50.00 and 7214.10.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant received purchase order from M/s. SEZ Bio-Tech Services Pvt. Ltd., Hadapsar, Pune, for supply of channels of various sizes. While placing the order, they certified that they possessed SEZ status and also produced the certificate issued by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ-SEZ. The appellant also made declaration to that effect before the excise authorities and thereafter effected the clearances .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se Act, along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand vide its order dated 18.2.2010 and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. The appellant has placed reliance on the following case law:- (i) Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2009 (243) ELT 542 (Tri.-Bang.); (ii) Cemet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. The short question for consideration is whether supplies made to SEZ Developer for the period prior to 31.12.2008 will attract the provisions of Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules or not, or whether the appellant is liable to pay 10% of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ Developer in case no separate accounts have been maintained in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version