2016 (1) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent supplied the final product, pumps along with other parts to M/s. Scenario India SEZ Project during July 2008 to December 2008 and the said supplies were made without payment of central excise duty as the clearance to a unit in SEZ and to a SEZ developer are exempt from duty. The respondent received a show-cause notice dated 19.07.2009 demanding an amount of `8,40,368/- being an amount equal to 10% of the total value of exempted goods cleared and sold by the respondent to SEZ developers during the said period along with interest and penalty. The respondent filed a reply to the show-cause notice denying the allegations and also cited number of judgments in their favour. The AC confirmed the demand v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the ld. Comm. has wrongly held that the provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 have overriding effect over other statutes. He also submitted that the definition of export as contained in SEZ Act cannot be imported in Central Excise Act, 1944 and Customs Act, 1962. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Essel Packaging Ltd. 2015 (320) ELT 769. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent filed the written submissions and submitted that the respondents are not liable to pay tax 10% of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ developers and that in terms of Section 2(m) of SEZ Act, the supplies from DTA to SEZ unit or to a developer of SEZ are treated as ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the parties and perused the records. 6. In fact the issue involved in this case is whether the demand of 10% of the value of the goods cleared to developers of SEZ is sustainable in a case where the supplies to developer of SEZ is deemed as export, and consequently whether the amendment to Rule 6(6)(1) of CCR 2004 (notification 50/08-CE dated 31.12.2008) would have retrospective effect or not. Since the issue involved in this case is no more res integra in the light of the judgement cited above by the counsel for the respondent, wherein the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that the goods cleared to developer of SEZ are deemed to be export and for such clearances, provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3), (4) of Rule 6 ....