2012 (6) TMI 741 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of excisable goods to the DTA on payment of duty - Non maintenance of seperate accounts - Held that - very basis of the impugned demand is unfounded inasmuch as, in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , this Tribunal rejected a similar plea of the Department and held that all supplies of excisable goods by a DTA unit to SEZ developer should be considered as exports and were not to be treated as exempted goods and consequently the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were not applicable to such goods - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against dropping of demand of Rs.2,86,000 by lower appellate authority regarding goods cleared to SEZ developer during 2007-08.

Analysis:
The Department appealed against the dropping of demand of Rs.2,86,000 by the lower appellate authority concerning the goods cleared to SEZ developer during 2007-08. The Department argued that the goods cleared to the SEZ developer should be treated as exempted final products, requiring the respondent to maintain separate accounts for common inputs used in the manufacture of final products. Failure to do so should result in payment of 10% of the value of clearances made to the SEZ developer. The original authority confirmed the demand under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with interest and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the Department's current appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the judge noted that the impugned demand lacked a valid basis. Referring to the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad, where the Tribunal held that supplies of excisable goods to SEZ developers should be considered as exports and not as exempted goods, the judge found that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were not applicable in such cases. Relying on this precedent, the judge upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Department's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, citing the precedent set in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad, which established that supplies of excisable goods to SEZ developers should be treated as exports and not as exempted goods, thereby invalidating the Department's demand for payment based on the alleged failure to maintain separate accounts for common inputs used in manufacturing final products.