Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Bangalore on 30 September, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Court I
Date of Hearing:30/09/2011
Date of decision:30/09/2011
Application No.E/Stay/570/2011
Appeal No.E/906/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.268/2010-CE dt. 30/09/2010
passed by CCE(Appeals-I), 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. Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Bangalore
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. K.S. Kantaraj, JDR for the Revenue.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.
2. The demand impugned in this appeal is one raised under Rule 6(3)(b) (for the period upto 31/3/2008 ) / Rule 6(3)(A) (for the subsequent period) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The demand is on the premise that the goods supplied by the appellant to the SEZ developers during the period of dispute were to be treated as exempted goods for purposes of the said rule. This is a wrong premise as such supplies to SEZ developers have been held to be exports under Section 2(18) of the Customs Act. This view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. + others Vs. CCE, Hyderabad vide Final Order No.532 to 539/2011 dt. 05/09/2011 (Tri. Bang.). This Tribunal held that the supplies made by DTA units to SEZ developers/units were exports and hence the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 were not applicable.
3. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned demands including interest and penalty are set aside and this appeal is allowed. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 3