9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngineers Service". During the course of audit of the records of the appellant, it was observed that the appellant was providing both taxable and exempted service and was not maintaining separate accounts for the CENVAT credit availed. Accordingly, the department was of the view that the appellant was liable to pay an amount equivalent to 8% (6% with effect from July 2009) of the value of the exempted service in respect of such services provided during April 2008 to September 2009. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs.1,68,92,979/- for the period 2008-09 to 2009-10 under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s used in or in relation to rendering of output services to a unit in SEZ or to developer of SEZ for their authorized operations. Vide Section 144 read with 8 schedule of the Finance Act, 2012, the said Rule was given retrospective effect from 10/02/2006 onwards. Thus, there was no need for the appellant to reverse the CENVAT Credit taken in respect of inputs and inputs services in respect of output service rendered to a SEZ unit or an SEZ developer. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He also relies on the following judicial pronounces:- (a) Repro India Ltd., Vs. UOI, 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom) (b) CCE Chandigarh Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd., 2009 (90) ELT 686 (CESTAT-Del) (c) Norris Med ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developer. The adjudicating authority has completely failed to examine the claim of the appellant, the details of which were provided to him at the time of adjudication. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 6.1 Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Repro India Ltd., reported in 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom) held that the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules are not attracted in the case of exports as Rule 6 (6) (v) provides an exception in the case of clearances for export. As per Section 2 (m) of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, supplying goods, or providing services, from a unit in DTA to an SEZ unit or SEZ developer is deemed as "export" and vide Section 50 of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
