Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... vs Parasakthi Cement Industries Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 09 & 10-2012 dated 25/04/2012 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Guntur]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of whether a manufacturer supplying goods to SEZ developers must pay the Rule 6(3) percentage of the value of its final product is not open for fresh determination, the point having been settled by the Tribunal in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, and followed in later orders; the appeal is therefore rejected on the strength of that settled position, with no independent reasoning given by this Bench.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 09 & 10-2012 dated 25/04/2012 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Guntur]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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 of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR NULL P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)
Versus
PARASAKTHI CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD JETTIPALEM, GUNTUR DIST, GUNTUR Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) For the Appellant
Shri T. Jagpathirao, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 13/07/2015
Date of Decision: 13/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21549 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. After hearing both the sides, we find the short issue involved is as to whether the appellant is required to pay a particular percentage of the value of their final product in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, which stands cleared by them to SEZ developers. Both sides agreed that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011(273) ELT 112 (Tri. Bang.)]. The said decision stands followed in number of subsequent orders. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and rejected the Revenues appeal. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja..
2
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