9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE (NT) dated 31-12-2008 is not retrospective, therefore supply made to the SEZ Developers cannot be export - Held that:- The very same issue has been settled in various judgments cited by the Ld. counsel in particular, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court also passed the judgment in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 781 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ). Thus it is of the considered v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty and under the cover ARE-1treating the supply as export. Subsequently the Jurisdictional Superintendent vide letter dated 25/05/2009 informed the appellant that the supply made to the SEZ Developers were not exempted from payment of Central Excise duty and also directed them to pay the duty along with interest. In reply of the said letter, the appellant paid the excise duty along with interest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that there is no dispute that supply of goods was made to the SEZ Developers by following the procedure which is applicable for export such as clearance under LVT, filing ARE-1 etc. On insistence of the department they paid the amount alongwith interest. He further submits that in terms of various judgments, now it has been settled that even prior to Notification No. 50/2008 -CE (NT) dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Respondent reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. The fact is not under dispute that supplies to the SEZ Developer were made by following the procedure as applicable to the clearance of goods for export. The lower authority has rejected the claim only on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
