9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that though the respondent has extracted the objections given by the petitioner in the impugned order, wherein, the petitioner has referred to the notification as well as the Circular of the Commissioner. However, there is no reference to the same and the impugned order has been passed totally on a different ground and by observing that the clearances to Special Economic Zone are not mentioned in the ExCus Notification No.25/2016, dated 14.06.2016. However, what the respondent should have seen is, as to the effect of the notification dated 14.06.2016, apart from the circular, dated 11.02.2010, wherein, it has been stated that though the SEZ are not listed in the proviso (i) to (vi) of Notification No.67/95 as per CBEC Circular 29/06, dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Act and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/-. In respect of another show-cause notice, the demand of Central Excise Duty of ₹ 6,91,230/- along with interest and penalty of ₹ 70,000/- were confirmed-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the respondent has passed the impugned order without taking note of the Circular issued by the Commissioner, dated 11.02.2010. Apart from that, the respondent also did not take into consideration the Notification No.25/2016, dated 14.06.2016, whereby, the earlier Notification No.67/95, dated 16.03.1995 was amended by substituting the words "Free Trade Zone" into "Special Economic Zone". Therefore, it is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances to SEZ are to be treated as exports and whether the unit clears the goods under Rule 18 or 19, no duty accrues to the Government. Thus, the respondent having not taken into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner which are very relevant to the facts of the case, this Court is justified in interfering with the impugned order. Apart from that it was pointed out that in respect of an identical issue in the assesse's own case, the CESTAT had granted an order of stay, dated 25.07.2012. 6. In the light of the above, the impugned order calls for interference with a further direction to redo the entire matter, after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner, some of which, have been noted above. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
