9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 851 - AT - Central ExciseSupplies of excisable goods to SEZ developer - whether attracts the provision of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and whether the respondent is liable to pay 10% of the value of the goods so supplied? - Held that - The issue whether Rule 6(3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is applicable from the supplies made to SEZ developers, has been settled. Even prior to the amendment the supplies made to SEZ is considered as export only and therefore the assessee is not required to pay an amount of equal to 10% value of the goods supplied to SEZ developers. See Commr. of C.Ex. & S.T. Bangalore Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)
Issues involved: Whether supplies of excisable goods to SEZ developer attract Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and if the respondent is liable to pay 10% of the value of the goods supplied.
The judgment pertains to an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/405/BEL/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai-III, where the original order was set aside, and the respondent's appeal was allowed. The primary issue discussed is whether the supplies of excisable goods to SEZ developers attract the provision of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and if the respondent is obligated to pay 10% of the value of the goods supplied. The appellant's representative argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the retrospective or prospective application of any amendments through notifications, deeming the order improper. Conversely, the respondent's counsel contended that the issue has been settled by various judgments, including those of Commr. of C.Ex. & S.T. Bangalore Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, indicating that supplies to SEZ were considered as exports even before the amendment, absolving the assessee from the 10% payment requirement. The tribunal found the cited judgments directly applicable to the case, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
