2015 (10) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, as supplies to SEZ/SEZ developers are treated as export. The point of dispute is as to whether the Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods, which were supplied to SEZ developers would be admissible or not. The Department being of the view that the Cenvat credit would not be admissible, issued a show cause notice for demand of Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 22,93,516/- in respect of the period from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009 alongwith interest on it and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 21/2/13 by which above-mentioned Cenvat credit demand was set aside. 1.2 However, the Department reviewed Additional 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

....reated as retrospective amendment. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct, that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of CCE, Chennai - II vs. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. reported in 2014 (299) E.L.T. 342 (Tri. - Chennai), and also in the case of Essar Steel Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 3 (Guj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etrospective amendment and for the period prior to 31/12/08 also the supplies to SEZ developers have to be treated as exports and the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods supplied to SEZ developers would be admissible. Prima facie, we are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunai in the case of CCE, Chennai - II vs. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, the point of dispute was as to whether the supply of Cenvated inputs as such by a manufacturer to a SEZ developer is to be treated as deemed export and whether Cenvat reversed under Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005 would be required. The issue involved in the case of Essar Steel ....