TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri R. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of TMT bars and had filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in relation to unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 relating to clearances of finished goods to SEZ. The original authority rejected the refund claims holding that clearances made to SEZ cannot be treated as exports. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) relying on Board Circular No. 29/2006 dated 27.12.2006 set aside the adjudication order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinue export and therefore be entitled to the benefit of rebate under Rule 18 of CCR, 2002 and of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, as the case may be. 4. Heard both sides and gone through the case records. 5. Revenue has based their grounds of appeal on the ratio of the Essar Steel Ltd. (supra). However, the facts in Essar Steel (supra) were a tad different. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sai Wardha Power Ltd. 2016 (332) ELT 529 (Tri. LB) distinguished the Essar Steel case, while reaching the conclusion that DTA supplies to SEZ was required to be treated as export , as follows:- 7.2 In the case of Essar Steel Ltd. (supra) the issue was whether export duty can be imposed under the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00% EOU should be treated as physical exports. We also find in a later judgment by the Hon ble High Court of Chattisgarh in Union of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2013 (297) ELT 166 (Chatt), it has been unequivocally held that goods supplied from DTA to developer of SEZ are to be treated as exports in view of Section 2M of the SEZ Act. We further find that the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang.) had also taken the same view which was upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh as reported in 2016 (342) ELT A115 (AP). 7. In the event, we have no doubt that the issue is fully settled in favour of the respondent. The department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
