2012 (11) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JUDGEMENT In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against a demand raised on the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the period from July to December 2008. During the said period, the appellant (a unit in the domestic tariff area) had cleared their products to SEZ developers/units. During the same period, they had also cleared their products to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Rs. 2,32,409/- being 10% of the value of goods amounting to Rs. 23,24,086/-. It also demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. It also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee under Rule 15 (1) of the CCR 2004. This decision of the Assistant Commissioner was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeal is directed against the appellate Commissioner's or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SEZ. It is submitted that the clearances to the other company were made as clearances to SEZ developer. The learned counsel, on this basis, submits that the demand raised on the appellant in respect of the clearances to M/s. Wipro Ltd. (SEZ unit) is liable to be set aside in view of the legal provision itself and that the demand in respect of the clearances made to M/s. L&T Hitech City Ltd. (SEZ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....05 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3. The learned counsel therefore prays for allowing this appeal. 4. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) points out that an appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision in Sujana Metal Products case has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and therefore the said decision may not have precedential value. In answer to a query from the benc....