2013 (1) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] supplies to SEZ from DTA units were exports and hence not to be considered as exempted goods for purposes of Rule 6 of the CCR 2004. The appellant cannot be required to honour the impugned demand as they were clearing only dutiable products to the DTA and hence there was no question of maintenance of separate a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent considered their clearances to SEZ developers as exempted goods. Having found no separate accounts having been maintained in respect of inputs or input services, by the appellant, the department required them, in terms of Rule 6 (3) of the CCR 2004, to pay 10% of the price (excluding taxes) of the goods cleared to the SEZ developers. This demand is presently under challenge. 2. In the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X