9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of clearance made to the SEZ developers or not during the period of 18-9-2008 to 26-12-2008? - Held that: - the respondent is manufacturing only and only dutiable goods. The goods are excisable but it is cleared to SEZ developers, therefore, no duty is payable - the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case - appeal dismissed - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was adjudicated for demand of 10% of the value of goods cleared to SEZ developers was confirmed along with interest and ₹ 10 lacs was imposed as penalty. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the ld. Commissioner (A) who relying on the decision of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 and hold that the provisions of Rule 6(3) are not applicable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Ltd. reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T. 166 (Chhatisgarh) which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2012 (285) E.L.T. 518 (Tri.-Del.), therefore, Revenue has no case. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that this issue before me is that whether the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable. From the above, it does not mean that the goods are exempted if they are cleared to SEZ developers. In that circumstances, I hold that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, there are judicial pronouncements are on the issue in favour of the respondent which are cited herein above. 9. In that circumstance, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
