9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate and DR for the appellants Mr. Ganesh Haavanur and Mr. G. Shiva Dass, DR and Advocate, for the respondents Per: M. Veeraiyan 1.1. Appeal No. E/936/2009 is by M/s. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner dated 10.08.2009 by which an amount of Rs. 1,61,35,168/- relating to the period April 2008 to November 2008 along with interest stands demanded and a penalty of Rs. 35,00,000/- imposed. 1.2. Appeal No. E/2288/2010 is by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 41/2010 (H-I) CE dated 28.07.2010 by which, the order of the original authority, confirming a demand of an amount of Rs. 3,23,334/- relating to the period 11.04.2007 to 02.01.2008 along with interest and imposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 in the above situation stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. (Appellant in E/936/2009) and Others as reported In this regard relevant portions of the said order is reproduced below: 6.1. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. In all these cases, the assessees have supplied the excisable goods without payment of duty to developers / promoters of SEZ. There is no dispute that the SEZ developers / promoters were entitled to get the goods supplied by the manufacturers in DTA without payment of duty. There is also no dispute that when exempted goods are supplied to SEZ units, the exception under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided by exception to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004..." 11. In the present case, taking into account the provisions of the erstwhile SEZ in chapter XA of the Customs Act, the provisions in the SEZ Act and the clarifications of the Board (except the clarification dt. 7/1/2009), it is apparent that the intention was to make available the benefits to SEZ developer for the authorized operations in addition to SEZ units and therefore the amendment No.50/2008-CE(NT) dt. 31/12/2008 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable retrospectively. However, as the amendment by No.50/2008 is only to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the question of extending the benefit of amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not arise. 12. As the issues i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be applicable to supply of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ developers / promoters. e. Appeals of the assessees deserve to be allowed and the appeals of the Department deserve to be rejected. f. Incidentally, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of invoking extended period of limitation for demand of amounts and imposition of penalties does not arise. 14. Accordingly the appeals of the assessees are allowed with consequential relief as per law and the appeals of the Department are rejected. Cross Objection No.E/CO/02/2010 is also disposed off. 5. As the issues stand settled in favour of the assessee in the above decision of the Tribunal, holding that the exception p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
