2013 (2) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Non preparation of separate accounts been maintained in respect of inputs or input services - demand to pay 10% of the price (excluding taxes) of the goods cleared to the SEZ developer - Held that - As decided in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE supplies to SEZ from DTA units were exports and hence not to be considered as exempted goods for purposes of Rule 6 of the CCR 2004. The appellant cannot be required to honour the impugned demand as they were clearing only dutiable products to the DTA and hence there was no question of maintenance of separate accounts in respect of inputs or input services and no question of applicability of Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004 - appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 regarding demand raised on the appellant.
2. Classification of clearances to SEZ developers as exempted goods.
3. Applicability of Rule 6 of the CCR 2004 on supplies to SEZ from DTA units.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deliberates on the sustainability of the demand raised on the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant was clearing products to SEZ developers without duty payment, alongside clearing identical goods to DTA buyers with duty payment. The department insisted on the appellant paying 10% of the price of goods cleared to SEZ developers due to the absence of separate accounts for inputs or input services. The Tribunal considered the case in light of Rule 6(3) and the necessity for maintaining separate accounts.

2. Referring to the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad, the Tribunal highlighted that supplies to SEZ from DTA units were categorized as exports and not exempted goods under Rule 6 of the CCR 2004. Despite the department's appeal against the mentioned decision, no stay order was presented. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should not be obligated to fulfill the demand as they were only clearing dutiable products to the DTA, eliminating the need for separate account maintenance and the application of Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004.

3. In light of the precedent set by the Sujana Metal Products case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned demand on the appellant. The judgment emphasized that since the appellant's clearances were solely dutiable to the DTA, the requirement for maintaining separate accounts for inputs or input services, as per Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004, did not arise. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned, providing clarity on the non-applicability of Rule 6(3) in the appellant's scenario.