9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 426 - AT - Central ExciseExemption of duty on the clinker, used captively in the production of cement vide N/N. 67/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 as amended - Denial on the ground that the final product viz., Cement cleared to the SEZ unit is an exempted product - final product cleared to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) without payment of duty - HELD THAT - The said issue was considered by the Tribunal in a batch of cases including the case of the appellant in M/S ULTRATECH CEMENTS LTD AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, TIRUCHIRAPALLI AND OTHERS 2015 (10) TMI 1058 - CESTAT CHENNAI where 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. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI VERSUS MADRAS CEMENTS LTD. 2017 (12) TMI 1664 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal has applied the said decision to set aside the demand. The demand cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the appellant is eligible for exemption from payment of duty on the intermediate product (clinker) under Notification No. 67/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 when the final product (cement) is cleared to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) without payment of duty. Comprehensive Details: 1. The appellants, manufacturers of cement, used clinkers for cement production, including clinkers manufactured by them and duty-paid purchased clinkers. They did not maintain separate records for the source of clinkers used. Cement was cleared both to indigenous customers with duty payment and to SEZ units without duty payment. 2. The Department contended that the appellant was not eligible for duty exemption on clinkers used in cement production for SEZ units as the final product, cement, was considered an exempted product when cleared to SEZ. 3. Show Cause Notices were issued, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the current appeal. 4. The appellant's representative argued that previous final orders had settled the issue in favor of the appellant. 5. The Tribunal reviewed previous cases and found that the appellant had followed the necessary procedures for clearing goods to SEZ under bond, indicating that the cement cleared to SEZ units was not exempted but cleared without duty payment following prescribed procedures. The clinkers used for cement production cleared to SEZ were deemed covered under Notification 67/95 for duty exemption. 6. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exemption applied only to Free Trade Zones (FTZ) and not SEZ, noting that FTZs had become SEZs after the SEZ Act came into effect. The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 67/95. 7. Citing a similar case involving Madras Cements Ltd., the Tribunal applied the same decision to set aside the demand in the present case, concluding that the demand could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs. *(Order pronounced in open court on 10.10.2023)*
|
