2014 (10) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dt.16.3.95 - Held that - Notification No.67/95 makes no special exemption in respect of exports , perhaps, for the reason that exports are not treated as exempted goods . The SEZ Act defines Export - to include supplies to SEZ from the Domestic Tariff Area. exports to SEZ will not fall under the category of exempted goods and the pre-deposit was waived in that case. Hence, following the ratio of these two cited decisions, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit in this case also pending disposal of the appeal - Following decision of assessee s own previous case - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty on intermediate product cleared to Special Economic Zone without payment of duty; Applicability of Notification No.67/95-CE; Contention regarding clearances to SEZ not being 'exempted goods'.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the demand of duty on the intermediate product cleared to a Special Economic Zone without payment of duty. The applicants, engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Alcohol and Chemicals, had cleared specific products to the SEZ without duty payment. The demand of duty, amounting to &8377; 4,59,241/- along with interest and penalty for the period November 2007 to August 2008, was made on the grounds that the final product is exempted, thus disqualifying them from the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.3.95. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this demand.

The key contention raised by the assessee was that the clearances to the SEZ should not be considered as 'exempted goods'. In a significant turn, the Tribunal referred to a previous stay order in the applicant's own case, where it was observed that exports to SEZ might not fall under the category of 'exempted goods'. The Tribunal highlighted that the Notification No.67/95 does not provide any special exemption concerning exports, possibly due to exports not being classified as 'exempted goods'. Citing precedents like the case of Dalmia Cement and Grasim Industries Ltd., the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit in the current case pending the appeal's disposal, following the same rationale.

In light of the preceding order and the interpretation of the law regarding exports to SEZ not being treated as 'exempted goods', the Tribunal decided to waive the predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty. Consequently, the recovery of the said amounts was stayed until the final disposal of the appeal, thereby allowing the stay application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal interpretations and precedents.