9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1167 - AT - Central ExciseExcisability - intermediate goods - clinkers used in the manufacture of cement - benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE claimed - demand is on the ground that cleared to SEZ is not export, hence duty is to be paid on clinkers - Held that - On identical issue in respect of the very same appellant, for the earlier period COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI VERSUS MADRAS CEMENTS LTD. 2017 (12) TMI 1664 - CESTAT CHENNAI , it was held that appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification 67/95-CE on clinker captively consumed for manufacture of cement cleared to SEZ units/developers without payment of duty for both the periods prior to and after the amendment of SEZ Act - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues involved:
Whether intermediate products cleared to SEZ units without payment of Central Excise duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE are liable to duty. Analysis: The appeal was directed against Order-in-Original No.06/2011 C.Ex dated 26.08.2011. The issue at hand was whether intermediate products, specifically clinkers used in the manufacture of cement, cleared to SEZ units without payment of Central Excise duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE, as supplies to SEZ unit/developer, are liable to duty. The demand was based on the argument that the clearance to SEZ is not considered an export, thus necessitating the payment of duty on clinkers. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision concerning the same appellant in appeal No. E/225/2011. In that case, the Tribunal had rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the appellant/assessee's contention, citing precedents from Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Tiruchirapalli [2016 (343) ELT 164(Tri.- Chennai) and the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. A/30260/2016 dt. 28.03.2016. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal and concluded that the impugned order required no interference, ultimately dismissing the appeal. Given the prior decision in the appellant's own case and the consistency with established precedents, the Tribunal saw no reason to deviate from the previously taken view. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, with the order being pronounced and dictated in open court.
|
