9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew This appeal lies against order-in-appeal no. SB/54/Th-I/2011 dated 1st February, 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I upholding recovery of Rs. 15,78,172/-, along with interest under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposing penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, Hyderabad [2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang.)], affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in Union of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd [2013 (297) ELT 166 (Chattisgarh)] and by the Tribunal in Ultratech Cement Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2015 (315) 238 (Tri. Mumbai)] all of which had held that the clearances to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to units in special economic zones without, admittedly, covering developers of special economic zones. With the coming into force of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, effective from 10th February 2006, exemption of duties on goods cleared from the domestic tariff area for use of developers or units in special economic zone is accorded by that special statute which does not distinguish between a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... categorization as exports would itself suffice to exclude the applicability of the liability prescribed therein. In the decision in re Sujana Metal Products Ltd, it was held that '11. In the present case, taking into account the provisions of the erstwhile SEZ in Chapter XA of the Customs Act, the provisions in the SEZ Act and the clarifications of the Board (except the clarification dated 7-1-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the goods to a developer of SEZ is treated to be export, there appears to be no reason why this benefit was not there, except that it was due to a mistake or inadvertence that the word developer was not initially included in the sub-rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004-Rules and the developers and units were not given same treatment.' 6. Considering the above, we find that the impugned order has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
