w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

The Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-III Commissionerate Hyderabad Versrus M/s. Sifco Metal Industries & Another

    Appeal No: E/1819 of 2010 & E/1820/2010 (Arising out of (i) Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 (H-III) CE dated 18.5.2010 & (ii) Order-in-Appeal No.9/2010 (H-III) CE dated 19.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-III), Hyderabad.)

    Decided On, 23 December 2011

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore


    For the Appellant : Ravi Rajendran, DR & Ravi Chandra, DR. For the Respondents : None.

Judgment Text

There is no representation for the respondents in these appeals despite notice.

2. The grounds of the appeals have been reiterated on behalf of the appellant. A copy of order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metals Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner - 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri.-Bang.) is found to have been filed sometime earlier by one of the respondents. On a perusal of the said order, I find that the issue in these cases stands settled against the Revenue. It was held in that case that any goods supplied by a DTA unit to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developers was not to be treated as exempted goods for purposes of Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore the Rule would not be applicable to any input used in the manufacture of goods supplied to SEZ developers.

3. In the present cases, the respondents were directed by the original authority, in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notices, to pay 10% of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ developers in terms of Rule 6(6) ibid. This demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 had overriding effect and consequently, the goods supplied from DTA to SEZ developers would be treated as exports. The view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) stands vindicated by the Tri

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

bunal’s decision in Sujana Metal Products case. 4. In the result, the impugned orders are sustained and these appeals are dismissed.