2009 (12) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons seeking to stay the operation of the impugned orders. Vide the impugned orders, the Commissioner vacated the demand of 10% of the sale price of the goods cleared by the respondents to SEZ developers in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The particulars of the demands are as follows : Sl. No. Appeal No. Material Period Amounts demanded .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en place prior to 31-12-2008 and therefore, Rule 6(3) of CCR applied to the subject clearances and 10% of the sale price excluding tax was liable to be paid by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly vacated the demand raised by the original authority as well as penalty imposed on the respondents. 3. The learned Counsel representing the respondents submits that the impugned orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rocurement by SEZ units SEZ developer from DTA for their authorized operations. 3.1 He submits that in view of the above clarification, the impugned clearances had to be treated as exports and were not clearances of exempted goods. Accordingly, Rule 6(3) of CCR did not apply to the subject clearances. The Commissioner had passed the impugned order in accordance with law. 3.2 He also cites t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X