2012 (3) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd of ₹ 75,28,050/- stand confirmed against the applicant/appellant for the period October to December, 2008 by demanding 10% of the final exempted product, which stands supplied to SEZ developers, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether supplies made to SEZ developers has to be considered as d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision in the case of M/s Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2012 - TIOL - 187 - CESTAT - BANG. 4. In fact, we find that the issue as to whether amendment made on 31/12/08 is required to be held as clarificatory and, hence, retrospective was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 (Tri. - B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X