2021 (7) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ifferent grades classifiable under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from April 2007 to December 2008, apart from selling Mild Steel Rounds and TMT Bar to independent buyers etc, they also exported 20457.34 MT of Mild Steel Rounds and TMT Bar to different SEZ developers without payment of duty. 2. A show cause notice dated 13-10-2010 was issued to the Appellant on the ground that the said clearance was in violation of provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without payment of duty in terms of Rule 30 of Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, as amended, by issuing ARE-1s under self sealing and self certification with remarks "Export to SEZ". It was alleged that they d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Undertaking, specified in Annexure-1 and Annexure-II, under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E (NT) dated 26-6-2001. He took us through copies of the invoices and ARE-1s under which the TMT bars were cleared to different SEZ Developers by following the aforementioned procedure. He also drew our attention to Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which during the material period, inter alia, provided that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty to a unit in a special economic zone. The Ld. Advocate also submitted that rule 6(6)(i), of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was substituted vide Notification No. 50/2008-CE (NT) dated 31-12-2008 wherein instead....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (ix) MITC Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Nashik reported in 2019 (366) ELT 882 (Tri.-Mum). (x) S.P. Fabricators Ltd Vs. CCE, Belapur reported in 2016 (334) ELT 105 (Tri.-Mum) The Ld. Advocate also argued that the demand is barred by limitation as they were following procedure as laid down under CBEC circular No. 29/2006-Cus dated 27-12-2006. In support of his submission he has relied upon para 12 of the judgment in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd Vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri.Bang) wherein it has been held that as the issues involved relate to interpretations of SEZ provisions under the Customs Act, SEZ Act and provisions of the Central Excise Rules and the Cenvat Credit Rules, no charge of supp....