Ge Intelligent Platforms Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 248/2012-CE dated 31/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appea
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question whether the assessee must reverse CENVAT credit on final products supplied to an SEZ developer, rather than to an SEZ unit, is answered by the Tribunal on the footing of its earlier decision in Sujana Metal Products Ltd v CCE, Hyderabad, which it treats as settling the point, and which it notes was upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the Revenue's appeal; the impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 248/2012-CE dated 31/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL 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
GE INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS PVT LTD 43, 1ST FLOOR, BUILDING 9, GATE NO.3, ELECTRONICS CITY, BANGALORE 560 100 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Arup Das, Sr. Manager Authorised Rep. of the Company For the Appellant
Mr. K.T. Pakshirajan Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 07/07/2015
Date of Decision: 07/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21501 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is required to reverse the credit availed by them, when their final product is supplied to SEZ developer. Revenue by entertaining a view that the non-reversal is only applicable when the final product is supplied to SEZ and not SEZ developer raised the demand and confirmed the same along with interest and imposition of penalty.
2. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stand settled by this Benchs decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported as 2011-TIOL-1173-CESTAT-BANG. The said decision stand confirmed by the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported as 2013-TIOL-1128-HC-AP-ST when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
3. In view of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 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