9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Economic Zone without payment of excise duty considering the clearance as export. Appellant also availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of said goods. The respondent made an objection regarding availment of said exemption since the exemption at the relevant time was only applicable to goods cleared to units and not to SEZ Developers. Accordingly, as per the Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2010, respondent confirm demand of Rs.26,44,431/- under the provision of Section 11(A) read with Rule 14 of Cenvat credit rule 2004,for the goods cleared to SEZ Developers with applicable interest and penalty as per Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exports were exempted from duty of Central Excise under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and consequently application of Cenvat Credit Rules. Section 151 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, overrides the provision of all other laws for the time being in force, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein with the provision of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. This section therefore overreaches and eclipses the provisions of any other law containing provisions contrary to the SEZ Act, 2005. Though the definition of the word "export" in the SEZ Act, in Sec. 2(m) included supply of goods to a "Unit" or "Developer", in clause (i) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the word "Developer" was conspicuously missing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared to a "developer" of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations. Therefore, we do not see any merit in these appeals. 15. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. 16. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed." 3. The learned counsel also draws my attention to the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Hyderabad - 2011 SCC OnLine CESTAT 3523: (2011) 273 ELT 112where it is held- 38. Insofar as Rule 6 (6) relating to the SEZ was concerned, the same was amended w.e.f. 31-12-2008. The provisions prior to amendment was: "The provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not applicable in case the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to SEZ units as well as SEZ developers. Therefore, there was omission in the CCR, 2002/2004 to give effect to the said policy of the Central Govt. Therefore, the amending Notification has been issued by way of "substitution". When the policy was consistent, retrospective effect has to be given to such provisions as per dictum of Supreme Court in the cases of W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.)] and GOI v. Indian Tobacco Association [2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.)]. As per the above decisions, exceptions provided under Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 shall be applicable to supply of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ Developers/promoters. 4. The learned ARreiterated the finding of the adjudication/app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
