Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bhilai Iron & Steel Processing Company ... vs C.C.E., Raipur Ii on 1 March, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 1.3.2013 Central Excise Appeal No.696 of 2011 Arising out of the order in appeal No.54/RPR-II/2010 dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals II), Central Excise, Raipur. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Bhilai Iron & Steel Processing Company (P) Ltd. .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E., Raipur II . Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Neha Gulati, Advocate for the appellants Shri R.K. Verma, A.R. for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Final Order No.55679/2013 Per Mr. S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty. During the period 2008-09, the appellant cleared the goods to SEZ developer without payment of duty. The case of Revenue is that as the appellants are availing credit in respect of common inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty as well as cleared at nil rate of duty, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the price of the goods cleared at nil rate of duty as per the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
4. The contention of appellant is that the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. C.CE.., Hyderabad reported in 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri-Bang.) held that supplies from DTA unit to developer in SEZ are covered under the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 in view of the amendment to Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules with effect from 31.12.2008 as the same has retrospective effect. The ratio of the above decision is fully applicable in the facts of the present case.
5. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(S.S. Kang) Vice President scd/ 1