2017 (9) TMI 1542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rein it was clarified that all clearances made to SEZ developer and SEZ co-developers are deemed to have been treated as exports as per Section 2(m) of the SEZ Act 2005. As regards the claim of the Revenue that respondent has not followed the procedure of ARE-1, it was held that non-preparation of ARE 1 is a condonable procedure lapse, if it is confirmed that goods are exported - There is no dispute as to the fact that the respondent had shown the clearances made to SEZ unit as clearances without payment of duty in the monthly returns. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. P.S. Reddy, A.R. for the Appellant Mr. M.V.S. Prasad, Adv for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the Reve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... him on merits as well as on limitation. 5. Learned A.R. draws my attention to the facts of the case and submits that the 1st Appellate Authority has erred in passing the said order in as much that clearances to SEZ shall be exempt provided the said clearances are undertaken as per Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002; It was an error on the part of the 1st Appellate Authority by treating clearances made to SEZ units as export clearances and not as exempt clearances; clearances made from DTA to SEZ units are not considered as exports and the provisions of SEZ Act cannot be generalised and applied to each and every Act, hence supplies made to SEZ units cannot be treated as exports under the Central Excise law. He relies upon the decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... conclusion that the clearances made by the respondent to an SEZ unit are exports as per the provisions of the SEZ Act 2005. I find that the 1st Appellate Authority has correctly relied upon the Circular of CBEC dated 27.12.2006 wherein it was clarified that all clearances made to SEZ developer and SEZ co-developers are deemed to have been treated as exports as per Section 2(m) of the SEZ Act 2005. I find that clearances made to SEZ developers was accepted as exports and non-exempted goods as held by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad [2011 (273)ELT 112 (Tri-Bang)] and is upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. as reported at 2016(342) ELT A 115.. 8. As regards the claim of the Revenue that responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X