Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)Ultratech Cement Ltd vs Cce &St, Jaipur-I on 9 November, 2016
5. We find that the above decision was followed by the Tribunal in Ultratech Cements Ltd. (supra) also. Following the ratio of these decisions, we hold that the appellants are very much entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE in respect of intermediate goods used to manufacture final products which were supplied to a SEZ unit. In the event, impugned order cannot sustain and will require to be set aside in toto, which we hereby do. Appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief, if any, any per law.
M/S. Sujana Metal Products(Appeal ... vs Cce, Chennai Ii on 16 January, 2014
6.?The term exempted goods as defined in Rule 2(d) in Cenvat Credit Rules means excisable goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty leviable thereon including the goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty. There is no dispute about the fact that neither the goods, in question, are chargeable to nil rate of duty nor these goods when supplied to SEZ Developers are exempted from payment of duty by virtue of some exemption notification issued under 5A(I) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Admittedly no duty is required to be paid on the goods supplied to SEZ Developers, as the same are treated as export in terms of the definition of this terms as given in Section 2(m) of SEZ Act, 2005. Though the learned departmental representative pleads that supplies to SEZ Developers are only deemed export and cannot be treated as export for the purpose of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder, the Section 51 of the SEZ Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other Law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any Law other than this Act. In view of the overriding provisions of 51 of SEZ Act, supplies to SEZ as well as to SEZ Developers by a D.T.A. unit would have been treated on exports for the purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the supplies to SEZ Developers are export, the same cannot be treated as exempted goods and hence the Provisions of sub-rule (1), (2) & (3) of the Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be applicable. Same view have been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (Supra), wherein the Tribunal held that during the period prior to 31-12-2008, supplies to SEZ Developers made without payment of duty are to be treated as exports and would be covered by sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 and accordingly the provision of sub-rule (1) (2) & (3) of Rule 6 would not be applicable."
Section 51 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005
Surya Roshni Ltd vs Cce, Rohtak on 30 June, 2017
4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. We find that the issue at hand is squarely covered by the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Consultant, which have unequivocally held that supplies made to SEZ / Developers by DTA unit are neither chargeable to Nil rate of duty nor exempt from payment of duty under exemption notification, hence they are not exempt goods for the purpose of Rule 2 (d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The relevant portion of the Tribunals decision in Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra) is reproduced below :
1