Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Hyderabad vs M/S. Pan Electro Tech Enterprises (P) ... on 15 June, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - SMB
Court I
Date of Hearing:15/06/2012
Date of decision:15/06/2012
Appeal No.E/1083/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.72/2009(H-I)CE dt. 21/08/2009 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals-I), Hyderabad)
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?
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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Hyderabad
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Pan Electro Tech Enterprises (P) Ltd.
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. M.M. Ravi Rajendran, Dy. Commissioner(AR) for the appellant.
Mr. B. Venugopal, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ The challenge in this appeal of the Department is mainly against the dropping of demand of Rs.2,86,000/- (being 10% of the value of finished products cleared by the respondent to SEZ developer during 2007-08) by the lower appellate authority. The respondent was also clearing excisable goods to the DTA on payment of duty during the said period. According to the Department, the goods cleared to SEZ developer were to be treated as exempted final products and therefore, in respect of common inputs used in the two streams of manufacture of final products dutiable and exempted, the respondent ought to have maintained separate accounts, failing which they ought to have paid 10% of the value of clearances made to SEZ developer. This view of the Revenue made its way into a show-cause notice, in adjudication of which the original authority confirmed the demand against the party under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, demanded interest thereon under Rule 14 read with Section 11AB, and imposed a penalty on the party under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC. This order of the Assistant Commissioner came to be set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals) in an appeal filed by the party. Hence, the present appeal of the Department.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the very basis of the impugned demand is unfounded inasmuch as, in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011(273) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang.)], this Tribunal rejected a similar plea of the Department and held that all supplies of excisable goods by a DTA unit to SEZ developer should be considered as exports and were not to be treated as exempted goods and consequently the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were not applicable to such goods. In view of this decision of the Tribunal, the view taken by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) requires to be upheld. In the result, this appeal gets dismissed. ( Pronounced and dictated in open court ) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 3