Tribunal orders duty refund on supplies to SEZ Developers as exports, overturning previous decision.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of duty paid on goods supplied to SEZ Developers treated as export. The tribunal held that the supplies should be considered exports based on established case law, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The appellant's contention that duty paid should be refunded along with interest was upheld, setting aside the previous order and providing directions for consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for duty paid on goods supplied to SEZ Developers treated as export.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the Order-in-Original that dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the duty paid on goods supplied to SEZ Developers. The appellant treated the supply as export under ARE-1 but was later informed by the Jurisdictional Superintendent to pay duty and interest. The refund claim was rejected citing rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that prior to Notification No. 50/2008, such supplies were considered export, referencing judgments like Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad. The appellant argued that duty paid should be refunded along with interest.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the supply to SEZ Developers was not exempt from duty post the mentioned notification. However, the appellant relied on judgments like Siemens Ltd. vs Commr of C.Ex., Navi Mumbai and M/s. Dee Development Engineering Ltd. vs Commr of C.Ex., Faridabad to support their claim that the supply to SEZ Developers should be considered export, thus warranting a refund of the duty paid.

Upon review, the tribunal acknowledged that the supplies to SEZ Developers were made following export procedures. The tribunal noted that judgments, including the one by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sujana Metal Products Ltd., established that such supplies should be treated as exports. Consequently, the tribunal held that the duty paid should be refunded to the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with directions for consequential relief as per the law.

---