Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Featherlite Products (P) Ltd vs Cce, Bangalore on 27 November, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - SMB
Court I
Date of Hearing:27/11/2012
Date of decision:27/11/2012
Appeal No.E/812/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.44/2011 dt. 07/01/2011
passed by CCE(Appeals-II), Bangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Featherlite Products (P) Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Bangalore
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. K.K. Varrier, Consultant for the appellant.
Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the demand raised on the appellant in terms of Rule 6 (3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 (CCR, 2004 for short) is sustainable or not. The appellant was clearing their products, without payment of duty, to SEZ developers during the period from February to October 2008. During the same period, they were also clearing identical goods to buyers in the DTA, on payment of duty. The Department considered their clearances to SEZ developers as exempted goods. Having found no separate accounts having been maintained in respect of inputs or input services, by the appellant, the department required them, in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004, to pay 10% of the price (excluding taxes) of the goods cleared to the SEZ developers. This demand is presently under challenge.
2. In the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Bang.)] cited by the learned consultant for the appellant, this Tribunal held that supplies to SEZ from DTA units were exports and hence not to be considered as exempted goods for purposes of Rule 6 of the CCR 2004. The learned Superintendent (AR) points out that the department has filed an appeal against the said decision. However, no stay of operation of the Tribunals order has been produced.
3. In view of the aforesaid decision, the appellant cannot be required to honour the impugned demand. They were clearing only dutiable products to the DTA and hence there was no question of maintenance of separate accounts in respect of inputs or input services and no question of applicability of Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. ( Pronounced and dictated in open court ) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 3