TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OU) mainly used for packing "fruit pulp" which was exported by the buyers. Metal containers were cleared by the appellant without payment of duty to the 100% EOU under CT-3 certificate and DTA units under cover of Annexure I in terms of Notification 34/2001-C.E., dated 21-6-01. The said goods cleared by them to the 100% EOU were used as packing material and were exported by them. Thereafter, the appellants filed refund claim of the unutilised CENVAT credit lying accumulated in the CENVAT credit account. 3. On scrutiny of refund claim, it was found that the appellants has filed refund claim pertaining to unutilised credit lying accumulated as on 31-3-2008. The appellants submitted that their clearances are to 100% EOU is deemed exports....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, this rejection of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, the Id. DR submitted that it is admitted fact that the clearance have been made by the appellants to 100% EOU as deemed exports. He further submitted that nowhere in the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act, the term "deemed export" has been defined. Moreover, clearance to SEZ by DTA units are also deemed export as per EXIM policy and in the case of CCE, Thane-I v. Tiger Steel - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 375 (T) this Tribunal has clearly held that clearances made to SEZ are not exports. Therefore in the facts of this case also, the clearance made to 100% EOU cannot be termed as export and impugned order is to be upheld. 6. Heard and consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Tiger Steel Engineering clearance made to SEZ were not held exports. The same treatment is to be given to this case. We are not in agreement with the argument of the DR. In fact in that case the issue before the Tribunal was whether the clearance made to SEZ are export or not. But in the case in hand, the facts are that the appellants have cleared the goods to 100% EOU which has further exported the goods physically. The intent of the legislature is to promote the exports of goods and not to export the taxes. In this case, the appellant has brought on record the evidences showing that the goods supplied by them to 100% EOU have finally been exported physically. Therefore, they are entitled to rebate claim. We have seen the impugned....