Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 685 - AT - Central ExciseLiability to pay the amount of 10% in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the goods supplied to the SEZ Developer - Held that - There is no dispute that the issue involved in the present case squarely covered by various judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel. In view of this legal position, it is settled that supplies made to SEZ Developer is treated as export, accordingly demand of 10% of value of goods supplied to SEZ Developer in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is not sustainable. Therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Whether the assessee is required to pay 10% in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on goods supplied to the SEZ Developer. Analysis: The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III, where the appeal was rejected, and the Order-in-Original was upheld. The main issue in this appeal was whether the assessee needed to pay 10% as per Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on goods supplied to the SEZ Developer. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was settled based on their own case and cited several judgments supporting their position. They contended that supplies to SEZ Developers were considered as exports and were covered under Rule 6(6)(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, making Rule 6(3)(b) inapplicable. On the other hand, the Respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After considering both sides' submissions, the Member (Judicial) found that the issue was squarely covered by the judgments cited by the appellant's counsel. It was established that supplies to SEZ Developers were treated as exports, rendering the demand for 10% of the goods' value under Rule 6(3)(b) unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief, if applicable, in accordance with the law.
|