9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1208 - AT - Central ExciseClearances to SEZ developer - Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - whether the demand under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is legal and correct in respect of final product cleared to SEZ developer? - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of SUJANA METAL PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , where it was held that the definition of the term export under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term export under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export.supplies made to SEZ are held to be export , provisions of Rule 6 of CCR does not arise at all - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Whether the demand under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is legal and correct in respect of final product cleared to SEZ developer. Detailed Analysis: The issue in the present case revolves around the legality and correctness of the demand under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the final product cleared to SEZ developer. The appellant's counsel, Shri. Akrit Jain, argued that the matter is covered by specific judgments, including the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd vs. CCE affirmed by Andhra Pradesh High Court and Ultrateck Cement Ltd vs. CCE. On the contrary, Shri. S.R. Nair, representing the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides and a thorough examination of the records, it was observed that the central issue at hand pertains to whether an amount of 10% of the value of goods supplied to SEZ developer is payable under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd was particularly relevant, where it was highlighted that the provisions of the SEZ Act and Customs Act aimed to provide benefits to SEZ developers for authorized operations. The retrospective applicability of certain amendments was discussed, emphasizing the treatment of supplies to SEZ units as exports under specific provisions. The judgment further clarified various aspects, such as the treatment of supplies made to SEZ units as exports for extending export benefits and levy of duty, the prevailing definition of "export" under the SEZ Act over the Customs Act, and the applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules for recovery of amounts on goods supplied to SEZ units. It was noted that the amendment to Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would be effective from a certain date, with exceptions provided for supply of exempted goods to SEZ units and developers/promoters. Consequently, the appeals of the assessees were allowed, and those of the Department were rejected based on the established legal principles and interpretations. The judgment set aside the impugned order, citing the settled legal position, and granted consequential relief to the assessees in accordance with the law. The pronouncement in court concluded the matter, affirming the allowance of appeals and disposal of cross objections. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricate legal aspects surrounding the demand under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning goods supplied to SEZ developers, drawing on relevant precedents and statutory provisions to arrive at a well-founded decision in favor of the assessees.
|
