9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: DR. D.M. MISRA This is an appeal filed against order-in-original No. 02/CEX/2010 dated 12.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the relevant period i.e. from 31st January 2007 to 26th August 2008, the appellant had manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to reverse 10% of the value of such clearances to SEZ Developers. It is his contention that the issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri.-Bang.) later upheld by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court reported at 2016 (342) ELT A115 (A.P.), in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty in terms of SEZ provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act. b. For the period from 10-2-2006, the 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, supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt deserve to be rejected. f. Incidentally, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of invoking extended period of limitation for demand of amounts and imposition of penalties does not arise." This judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court subsequently. Also, consistently, the principle laid down has been followed by the Tribunal in S.P. Fabricators Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
