2017 (8) TMI 691 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance to SEZ - CENVAT credit - non-maintenance of separate records for dutiable and non-dutiable goods - Held that - the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favor of the appellant by the decision of Division Bench in the case of Sujana Metal Products Vs. CCE 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , wherein the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that supplies made to SEZ from DTA are deemed exports and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit and is not required to maintain separate account for dutiable and non-dutiable goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Demand confirmation for an amount equal to 10% of the value cleared to SEZ developer under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Central Excise Act, 1944; imposition of penalties under CCR and Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order confirming a demand of an amount equal to 10% of the value cleared to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer under CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing structural glazings, was accused of clearing goods to themselves without payment of duty by wrongly availing exemption meant for SEZ clearances. The clearances to the SEZ developer were not notified in Rule 6(6) of CCR, 2004, which led to the demand confirmation. The Commissioner imposed penalties under CCR and Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on a show-cause notice. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that subsequent amendments to CCR, 2004 were retrospective, citing relevant court cases to support their claim.

The appellant contended that the impugned order was contrary to CCR, 2004 and subsequent amendments. They argued that the retrospective nature of the amendments, as established in court cases, should apply to their case as well. The learned counsel highlighted the High Court rulings in support of their position. On the other hand, the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, leading to a dispute over the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Judicial Member found that the issue had been settled in favor of the appellant in a previous Division Bench decision. The Division Bench had ruled that supplies made to SEZ from the Domestic Tariff Area are deemed exports, entitling the assessee to CENVAT credit without the need for separate accounts for dutiable and non-dutiable goods. Relying on this precedent, the Judicial Member concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant by applying established legal principles and precedents to determine the inapplicability of the demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting the law in line with relevant court rulings and established practices within the realm of Central Excise laws and CENVAT credit rules.