Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 February, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/1239/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 12/BR-08/Th-I/2009 dt. 28.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I ) Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. : Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I : Respondent
Appearance None for Appellant Shri Sanhay Hasija, Superintendent (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 14/02/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/02/2018 ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is that whether the supplies made to SEZ Developer would attract demand of 10% amount of value of the goods in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for the period before amendment of Rule 6 vide Notification No.50/2008-CE (NT) dt. 31.12.2008.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the Tribunal decision in the case of Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Thane 2011 (271) E.L.T. 302 (Tri.-Mumbai).
4. On careful consideration of the submission made by the Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) and on perusal of record, we find that the issue involved is no longer res integara in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Hyderabad 2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Bang.). Following the decision of Sujana Metal Products Ltd., wherein it was held that supplies made to SEZ developers is considered as export. Therefore even prior to 31.12.2008 i.e. before the amendment vide Notification No. 50/2008-CE(NT) the supplies is considered as export in terms of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. The demand of 10% of the value of the goods in terms of Rule 6(3) is not payable on the goods supplied to SEZ Developer. Therefore following the judgment in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. and other judgments of this Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Pronounced in court on 28/02/2018)
(C.J.Mathew)
Member (Technical)
(Ramesh Nair)
Member (Judicial)
SM.
2
E/1239/09