TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacture final products which were supplied to a SEZ unit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.E/119/2011, Appeal No.E/41030/2013, Appeal No.E/42247/2013 - Final Order No.43206-43208/2017 - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri P. C. Anand, Consultant For the Appellant Shri P. Anbuchelvan, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The common dispute in all these appeals concerns clearance of intermediate products viz. Acetic Acid, Ethyl Acetate and Anhydride cleared by the appellants to a unit situated in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) without payment of duty in terms of Rule 30 of SEZ Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 2 (d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The relevant portion of the Tribunal's decision in Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra) is reproduced below : 5 . We have considered that rival submissions. There is no dispute that common Cenvat Credit availed inputs have been used in the manufacture of goods supplied to DTA buyers on payment on duty and also in respect of the goods supplied to SEZ Developers without payment of duty. The point of dispute is as to whether the goods supplies to SEZ Developers without payment of duty are to be treated as exempted goods within the meaning of this term as defined in Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether in respect of these supplies, the provision of sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 6 ibid w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods and hence the Provisions of sub-rule (1), (2) (3) of the Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be applicable. Same view have been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (Supra), wherein the Tribunal held that during the period prior to 31-12-2008, supplies to SEZ Developers made without payment of duty are to be treated as exports and would be covered by sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 and accordingly the provision of sub-rule (1) (2) (3) of Rule 6 would not be applicable. 5. We find that the above decision was followed by the Tribunal in Ultratech Cements Ltd. (supra) also. Following the ratio of these decisions, we hold that the appellants are very much entitled to the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
