Accosoic Controls P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune ...
- CitationAppeal No. E/1775/10
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Goods cleared to an SEZ developer, as opposed to an SEZ unit, are eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification, and the denial of that benefit cannot be sustained on the ground that a developer and a unit are to be treated differently, since the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Steel Authority of India has held that no discrimination of that kind may be drawn between them and the Tribunal in Sujana Metal Products has applied the same reasoning.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/164/2010 dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
Accosoic Controls P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.S. Paranjape, CA for the appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing : 18.03.2015 Date of decision : 18.03.2015
O R D E R No:..
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/164/2010 dated 15.07.2010.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the reversal of an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the goods cleared to SEZ exporter by availing the exemption Notification. Revenue is of the view that the appellant is required to reverse the 10% and equivalent amount of penalty as SEZ developer cannot be equated with SEZ unit.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue is no more res integra. The Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in UOI vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2013 (297) ELT 166 had specifically gone in the same issue and has held that there cannot be a discrimination between SEZ developer and SEZ unit and goods cleared to SEZ developer is eligible for benefit of exemption. By applying the ratio of as indicated in para 47, 48 & 49, I find the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and I do so.
5. Further, I find the identical issue came before the Division bench of the Tribunal in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tri-Bang) wherein the appeal of the assessee was allowed on the very same issue, the ratio of which is referred at para 12 and 13.
6. In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncement, I hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so.
7. Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
//SR
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free