Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sujana Metal Products Ltd vs Cc&Ce, Hyderabad on 1 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE Court I(DB) Date of Hearing:01/07/2013 Date of decision:01/07/2013 Appeal No.C/867-869/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-original No.1/2009-Cus(Commr) dt. 28/12/2009; No.2/2009-Cus.(Commr) dt. 28/12/2009 & No.2/2009-Cus(Commr.) dt. 28/12/2009 passed by CC&CE, Hyderabad) M/s. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. M/s. Sujana Universal Inds. Ltd. M/s. Sujana Towers Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC&CE, Hyderabad ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. B.V. Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy] Today when the matter was called, we find that only appeal No.C/867/2010 has been listed for final hearing. On going through the Stay Order, we find that in the Stay Order, three stay applications viz. C/ST/494-496/2010 in appeal Nos.C/867-869/2010 had been considered and a common Stay Order had been passed since the issue involved in all the cases was same. Even though only one appeal has been listed today since the issue is the same in all the appeals and common Stay Order has been passed on an earlier occasion, we consider it appropriate that the remaining two appeals also should be called for and decided to avoid further additional litigation work.
2. The learned counsel submits that the three appellants were clearing iron and steel products to various SEZ units all over the country. The Department took a view that appellants should have discharged export duty in terms of Notification No.66/2008-Cus. dt. 10/05/2008. Even though the units were located in different places, a common adjudicating authority was appointed by the CBEC vide No.70/09-Cus(NT) dt. 30/06/2009 in terms of which the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order confirmed the demand of export duty from all the appellants with interest and penalty has also been imposed.
3. The learned counsel submits that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. UOI [2010(249) ELT 3 (Guj.)]. In this decision Honble High Court took the view that there was no need to discharge export duty in the case of clearances to SEZ units in view of the definition of export in Customs Act. Further the learned counsel also submits that the specific provision which existed in the Customs Act for levy of export duty for clearances to SEZ units was deleted and this was also taken note of and on that basis the Honble High Court has come to a conclusion. In reply to a query from the Bench whether this decision was submitted before the lower authorities, he submitted that the same had been submitted but was not taken note of.
4. In view of the fact that the same issue is covered by the decision of Honble High Court of Gujarat in favour of the appellant and the decision has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court as reported at 2010(255) ELT A 115(SC), we allow all the three appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)
( ASHOK JINDAL ) (B.S.V. MURTHY)
MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
Nr
3