9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in the present case is whether the demand under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is legal and correct in respect of final product cleared to SEZ developer. 2. Shri. Akrit Jain, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue in the present case is covered by following judgments: (a) Sujana Metal Products Ltd vs. CCE[2011 (237) ELT 112(Tri.Bang)] affirmed by Andhra Pradesh High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SEZ Act and the clarifications of the Board (except the clarification dated 7-1-2009), it is apparent that the intention was to make available the benefits to SEZ developer for the authorized operations in addition to SEZ units and therefore the amendment No.50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable retrospectively. However, as the amendment by No.50/2008 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition of the term "export" under the Customs Act is not consistent with the definition of the term "export" under the SEZ Act. However, the definition of the term "export" under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term "export" under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export. c. Since both during the period prior to and w.e.f. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period of limitation for demand of amounts and imposition of penalties does not arise. 14. Accordingly the appeals of the assessees are allowed with consequential relief as per law and the appeals of the Department are rejected. Cross Objection No.E/CO/02/2010 is also disposed off. In view of the settled legal position, issue in hand is no longer res integra, therefore following the above ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
