2013 (10) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds – Exempted OR Not - Whether during the period November 2007 to December 2008 had cleared excisable goods to SEZ developer under bond / letter of undertaking without payment of duty, to be considered as exempted goods – Held that:- Following Sujana Metal Products vs. CCE [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] - Supplies made to SEZ shall be treated as export - supplies made to SEZ are held to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is whether during the period November 2007 to December 2008 had cleared excisable goods to SEZ developer under bond / letter of undertaking without payment of duty; to be considered as exempted goods. Lower authorities were of the view that the appellants have to pay 10% of the value of the goods, as clearances made to SEZ developer would fall under the category of exemption. Both the lower author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h sides and perusal of the records, we find there being undisputed on the fact that the demand is of 10% of the value of the goods cleared by the appellant to SEZ developers and having not maintained separate accounts, is required to pay the amount as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 5.1 On perusal of the decision of this Bench in the case of Sujana Metal Products .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X