9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strued as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(1) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a "developer" of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued which culminated into the passing of the Order-in-Original confirming the demand and thereafter appeal was filed which was also dismissed. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant is required to reverse 10% of the value of the exempted goods cleared to SEZ Developers in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. This issue has been squarely covered in favour of the appellant in various decisions which has been relied upon by the appellant in support of his submission. He placed reliance on the following decisions: a) M/s. Sujana Metal Product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. Similarly in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2015 (315) E.L.T. 238] wherein the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has allowed the benefit to the assessee by holding that the goods supplied from DTA to contractors of SEZ units/developers without payment of duty is treated as export in view of Section 2(m) of Special Economic Zone Act 2005 and all the benefits which is given to export under any other law should be given to the SEZ Developer also. Similarly the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II reported in 2015-TIOL-474 has held relying upon the Sujana Metal Products case cited supra that the goods supplied to SEZ Developers are to be treated as ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
