2016 (8) TMI 625 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption Notification No. 42/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/6/001 read with notification no. 43/2001-CE (NT) dated 26/6/2001 - benefit of availment - respondent has not supplied the goods directly to SEZ Unit but has supplied the same to M/s. Shree Bajrang Alloys Ltd., who have further supplied the goods to SEZ Units - Whether the clearance of goods to SEZ, amounts to manufacture or not - Held that - there are two earlier decisions of the Tribunal involving the same assessee, i.e., M/s. Shree Bajrang Mettalics and Power Limited, supplying the goods to M/s. Shree Bajrang Alloys Ltd., who were further clearing the same to SEZ Unit. In both the said decisions, it stands held that the benefit of the notification stands rightly availed by M/s. Shree Bajrang Metallics and Power Ltd. reported in 2012 (12) TMI 99 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and 2014 (2) TMI 166 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Therefore, asmuch as the issue is covered, no reasons found to take a different view. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against dropping of proceedings by the Commissioner regarding supply of goods to SEZ Unit benefiting from exemption notification.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner, who had dropped the proceedings against the respondent regarding the supply of goods to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit, availing exemption under Notification No. 42/2001 CE(NT) and Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT).

2. The core objection raised by the Revenue was that since the respondent did not directly supply the goods to the SEZ Unit but through another entity, the benefit of the notification should not apply. The Revenue contended that the clearance to the SEZ Unit does not constitute an export of goods, thus challenging the legality of the notification's applicability.

3. The Tribunal noted that there were two previous decisions involving the same assessee, M/s. Shree Bajrang Mettalics & Power Ltd., where it was established that the benefit of the notification was correctly availed. These decisions were reported in 2012 (282) ELT 108 (Tri-Del) and Final Order No. C/A/19/2012-CU[DB] dated 13/01/2012.

4. Given the precedent set by the earlier Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal found no justification to deviate from the established interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the benefit of the notification to the respondent.

5. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in an open court, solidifying the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on the consistent application of legal precedent in similar cases involving the same parties and transactions.