2012 (6) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l of the Department is mainly against the dropping of demand of Rs.2,86,000/- (being 10% of the value of finished products cleared by the respondent to SEZ developer during 2007-08) by the lower appellate authority. The respondent was also clearing excisable goods to the DTA on payment of duty during the said period. According to the Department, the goods cleared to SEZ developer were to be treate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the party. Hence, the present appeal of the Department. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the very basis of the impugned demand is unfounded inasmuch as, in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011(273) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang.)], this Tribunal rejected a similar plea of the Department and held that all supplies of excisable goods by a DTA unit to SEZ developer should .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X