2012 (11) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be set aside in view of the provisions of Rule 6 (6) (i) as it stood during the period of dispute. This provision clearly laid down that the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in the case of excisable goods removed, without payment of duty, to a unit in SEZ. The appellant has established that, during the material period, M/s. Wipro Ltd. were maintaining a manufacturing unit in the SEZ. Apparently, the lower authorities erroneously considered them as SEZ developer - Decided in favour of assessee.
Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Cherian Punnoose, advocate For the Respondent: Mr S. Tali, Deputy Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against a de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner's order. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits at the outset that the surviving demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 6 (3) of the CCR 2004 is in respect of the goods cleared by the appellant to two parties viz. (1) M/s. Wipro Ltd., Electronic City, Bangalore and (2) M/s. L&T Hitech City Ltd., Visakhapatnam. He submits that both these companies have been treated as SEZ developers. However, in respect of M/s. Wipro Ltd., he disputes this and submits that the clearances in question were made to a manufacturing unit of that company set up in the SEZ as permitted by the Development Commissioner. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to the Development Commissioners permission dated 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and therefore the said decision may not have precedential value. In answer to a query from the bench, however, it is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has not stayed the operation of the Tribunal's decision. 5. After carefully considering the submissions, I am inclined to follow the case law cited before me in respect of the demand raised on the appellant in relation to the clearances made to M/s. L & T Hi-tech City Ltd. (SEZ developer). Those clearances cannot be treated as clearances of exempted goods and must be considered as exports. Consequently the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the CCR 2004 are inapplicable. In respect of the clearances made by the appellant to M/s. Wipro Ltd., .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X