2018 (7) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that appellants are manufacturers of cement and clinker and cleared them to domestic customers on payment of excise duty. They availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services in terms of provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the impugned period, appellant cleared cement to SEZ developers also in addit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... counsel Shri Santhana Gopalan submitted that the goods cleared to SEZ developers without payment of duty does not amount to clearance of exempted goods and Rule 6(3) is therefore not applicable. He submitted that the issue is settled in the appellant's own case reported in 2014 (310) ELT 170 (Tri.) as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Commissioner Vs. Ultra Tech Cem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... laws:- a. Union of India Vs. SAIL - 2013-TIOL-384-HC-CHAT b. Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise -2015 (315) ELT 238 4. Regarding invocation of extended period, the ld. counsel submitted that the department has not produced any evidence to establish suppression. The fact of clearance of goods to SEZ developers was known to the department and that the issue involves ....