Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 725 - AT - Central ExciseClearance to SEZ Developers - whether the clearance are to be treated as export or not and whether the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the price of goods cleared at nil rate of duty? - Held that - the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE wherein the supplies from DTA Units to Developers in SEZ for the period prior 31-12-2008 and after 10-2-2006, the clearance made to SEZ Developers are to be treated as export of dutiable goods and entitled to benefit as such - the supplies to SEZ Developers shall be treated as export of dutiable goods and the appellants are entitled for benefit as such - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against duty demand on goods supplied to SEZ Developers under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Analysis: The appellants challenged an order confirming duty demand on goods supplied to SEZ Developers under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Revenue contended that goods cleared without duty payment to SEZ Developers should not be treated as exports, and the appellants must pay 10% of the goods' price cleared at nil duty rate. The Revenue relied on guidelines from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, dated 3-4-2008, stating that Cenvat credit is not available for inputs used in finished products supplied to SEZ Developers under Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Revenue argued that precedents like Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad and Surya Roshni Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak were not applicable to the case. The Tribunal considered the issue previously addressed in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. case, where it was ruled that supplies to SEZ Developers should be treated as exports of dutiable goods, entitling the appellants to corresponding benefits. The Tribunal noted that the decision in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. case covered the current issue, as it clarified that supplies to SEZ Developers are to be treated as exports of dutiable goods. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. This judgment highlights the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 concerning duty demand on goods supplied to SEZ Developers. It emphasizes the treatment of such supplies as exports of dutiable goods, aligning with precedents and guidelines from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry. The ruling provides clarity on the availability of Cenvat credit for inputs used in products supplied to SEZ Developers and establishes the entitlement of appellants to benefits associated with treating such supplies as exports.
|