2013 (7) TMI 829 - AT - Central Excise

Application of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to SEZ developers - Assistant Commissioner rejected refund claim - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside - Held that - Following decision of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and Surya Roshini Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak 2013 (1) TMI 500 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs used in goods supplied to SEZ developers without payment of duty.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs used in goods supplied to SEZ developers without payment of duty

The judgment pertains to a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent for Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to SEZ developers without payment of duty. The period under consideration is from January 2008 to September 2008. The respondent had availed Cenvat credit on inputs and supplied finished products to SEZ developers without duty payment. The department contended that the respondent was not entitled to Cenvat credit for these supplies.

The Asstt. Commissioner, through three separate orders, rejected the refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the grounds of the respondent's ineligibility for Cenvat credit concerning inputs used in goods supplied to SEZ developers without duty payment. However, on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), these orders were set aside, prompting the Revenue to file appeals against the Commissioner's decisions.

The Tribunal, in its analysis, referred to previous judgments on similar matters, including cases such as Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad, Surya Roshini Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak, and Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue had been settled through a series of judgments and cited the dismissal of Revenue's appeal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. by the Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and dismissed them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the settled nature of the issue based on previous judgments and the dismissal of Revenue's appeal by the High Court. The judgment provides clarity on the eligibility for Cenvat credit in cases where goods are supplied to SEZ developers without payment of duty during the specified period.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the judgment, focusing on the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant rules and regulations.