Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Hyderabad-I vs Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Unit V I I I on 24 September, 2018 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Amitex Silk Mills Pvt.Ltd. on 18 November, 2015

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the period in question is October 2014 to December 2014 which clearly falls prior to the amendment of Rule 5 of CCR. During this period the supplies to 100% EOUs were not excluded from the scope of Rule 5. He further draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Amitex Silk Mills Pvt Ltd [2010 (254) ELT A98 (SC)] in which it was held that deemed exports should be treated on par with physical exports. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Bench had, in Final Order A/30890-30891/2016 dated 27.09.2016 in the case of Sai Polymers [2017 (5) TMI 671 (CESTAT-Hyd)] had held that for the period prior to the introduction of explanation (1A) to Rule 5 of CCR, supplies to 100% EOU will entitle the assessee to refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5. Relying on this order of this Bench, the first appellate authority has ruled in favour of the respondent herein.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1