2017 (11) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., Chemicals falling under chapter sub heading No.382440....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of exempted goods cleared as per Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR or shall pay an amount equivalent to the cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input service used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods subject to the conditions and procedures prescribed under Rule 6(3) (ii) ibid. Further, clearance of excisable goods removed without payment of duty to the developers of SEZs are not covered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. She further submitted that SEZ unit is treated at par with the SEZ Developer and the goods cleared to SEZ Developer are not exempted goods. She further submitted that the goods cleared to SEZ Developer without payment of du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 240 (Kar.) and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lotus Power Gears - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 347 (Kar.). Besides these two cases, the issue is settled in favour of the appellant by the following decisions: a) CCE,....