2012 (2) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ran, Deputy Commissioner and N. Jagdish, Superintendent for the Respondent JUDGEMENT P.G. Chacko:- 1. In all the appeals, most of them filed by the assessees and the rest by the Department, the substantive issue which arises for consideration is whether the assessees were liable to consider, during the material period, their clearances to SEZ developers to be clearances of exempted goods. All the assessees manufactured excisable goods in their DTA units and supplied the same to SEZ developers. They took CENVAT credit of the duty paid on their inputs which were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final the products cleared to SEZ developers as also to other customers. This, they did without maintaining any separate accounts. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the period from April to September, 2009 and demanding interest thereon. The assessee was providing their output service viz. industrial or commercial construction service to SEZ developers and others during the said period. They did not pay service tax on the service provided to SEZ developers by virtue of Notification No.9/2009-ST(as amended), but paid service tax on the service provided to other customers. The show-cause notice issued by the Department alleged that, as the notice availed CENVAT credit on common inputs and input services without maintaining separate accounts, they were liable to pay 8%/6% of the value of what was held to be "exempted services" for the aforesaid period. Obviously, the output service rendered to the SEZ d....