Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Siemens Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Navi ... on 30 April, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/454/2011-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. Belapur/34/Bel.IV/R-III/COMMR/SLM/10-11 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Siemens Limited :
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai :
Respondent Appearance Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate for Appellant Shri Navneet Additional Commissioner (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 30/04/2013
Date of decision : 30/04/2013
ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty demand has been confirmed on account of goods supplied by the appellant to SEZ Developers under the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. As the revenue is of the view that during the period in dispute, the goods cleared without payment of duty to SEZ Developers are not be treated as export and the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the price of goods cleared at nil rate of duty to SEZ Developers.
2. Heard both sides. It is the contention of the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue that as per the guidelines for field formations issued by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce dt. 3.4.2008, the CENVAT Credit is not available for the inputs used in the finished product supplied to Developers of SEZ in terms of Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Therefore, he prayed that the decision of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.Bang.) and Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak reported in 2012 (285) E.L.T. 518 (Tri.Del.) are not applicable to the facts of the case.
3. Considering the fact that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue before the Tribunal was that supplies from DTA Units to Developers in SEZ for the period prior 31.12.2008 and after 10.2.2006, the clearance made to SEZ Developers are to be treated as export of dutiable goods and entitled to benefit as such. Therefore, this Tribunal has held that the supplies to SEZ Developers shall be treated as export of dutiable goods and the appellants are entitled for benefit as such. Following the decision of the Sujana Metal Products Ltd.(supra), the issue is in hand is squarely covered by the said decision. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the impugned order, the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any .
(Pronounced in court on) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm ??
??
??
??
3