9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was cleared by the appellant to SEZ developer without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 under the cover of ARE-1 after due execution of Letter of undertaking and after due compliance of the Central Excise Laws. The department issued a show-cause notice demanding duty of Rs. 9,13,341/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and proposed to impose penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 mainly on the allegation of contravention of Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for availing credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final goods cleared without payment of duty to SEZ developer and also for contravention of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sujana Metal products Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad reported on [2011(273)ELT 112]. The said decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the department before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 02.07.2013 in Central Excise Appeal No. 40/2012 dismissed the appeals filed by the department. He also submitted that the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of UOI Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd [2013(297)ELT 166] considered an identical issue and held that the amendment to Rule 6(6) to include SEZ developer with effect from 31.12.2008 has retrospective effect from 2004 onwards and therefore no reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to SEZ developer is requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding the supply of goods to SEZ Units and SEZ developers have become redundant. Consequently the supplies from DTA to a SEZ unit, or to SEZ developers for their authorized operations inside a SEZ notified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, may be treated as in the nature of exports." Similarly in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, [2016(334)ELT 105 (Tri-Mum)], the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd (supra) and has held that the goods supplied to SEZ developer should be treated as exports under Rule 6 (6) and no liability to pay 8%/10% of the value. 3. On the other hand, learned A.R. submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Fabricato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
