TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us customers against the Duty Credit Scrips issued to them by DGFT under Served From India Scheme ('SFIS') in terms of Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 ('FTP'). These scrips were issued under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006. The appellant cleared the goods during the period April 2012 to January 2016. An audit was conducted and it was found that the appellant has cleared DG sets without payment of excise duty under the Status Holder Incentive Scheme by availing the benefit of Notification No. 33/2012-CE dated 09.07.2012 and under SFIS by availing the benefit of Notification dated 14.06.2006. Further, in terms of CBEC Circular No. 973/07/2013-CX dated 04.09.2013, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 are no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in - 2013 (296) ELT A16 (Guj). She further submits that the said decision was followed by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (9) TMI 694 CESTAT- Mumbai. She further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal relying on the CBEC Circular No. 973/07/2013-CX dated 04.09.2013 the said circular does not mention the notification is in question and it is the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that as the notification in question has not been mentioned in the Circular, therefore, the benefit of the said circular is not entitled to the appellant. But, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... free in terms of the Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006. Therefore, the issue before this Tribunal is whether the goods cleared under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 under SFIS Scheme are exempted or not? It is an admitted position by both sides that the goods in question manufactured by the appellant are dutiable under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985. 7. A similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts of the case as under:- "2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein is a manufacturer of transformers and are availing CENVAT Credit on duty paid of inputs used in the manufacturing of finished products. During the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Officer of the assessees from where goods are cleared under SFIS. The CBEC circular also very specifically clarifies that the original certificate has to be produced before the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer for 'debiting the duties of excise leviable on the goods'. The wordings of notification and subsequent CBEC Circular, would make it clear that the duty liability which has been debited in the SFIS scrip, would amount to discharge of duty liability and not amounting to exemption, as was proposed by Revenue. 9. I find that Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Tanfac Industries Ltd. v. CCE (supra) had considered an issue which was identical. In the said case their lordships were considering whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made in SFIS would not amount to exemption from payment of duty. I hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." and the said decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 8. Further, the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has following the decision in the case of M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd. (supra) hold that the goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 is not exempted, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR, 2004 are not applicable. 9. I further find that these facts are found support from the....