HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
C.E.A. NO.56 OF 2014
DATED:03.6.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Tirupathi Commissionerate 9/86A, West Church Compound M.P. Palle Road Tirupathi … Appellant And M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Bhogasamudram Village Tadipatri Mandal Anantapur District A.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
C.E.A. NO.56 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.28.6.2013 and is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law:
(i) “Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the supplies made from DTA to SEZ developer/promoter as ‘exports’, entitled for the exceptions provided under Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in applying the overriding effect of Section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005 to hold the impugned goods as “exports” and at the same time ignoring the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of SEZ Act, according to which the supplies by domestic units to the units in SEZs/Developers of SEZ are exempted from payment of Central Excise duties?
(iii) Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Notification No.50/2008 CE (N.T) dated: 31.12.2008 shall be applicable with retrospective effect, when the Ministry/Board vide its Circular No.267/52/2008-CX dated 07.01.2009 has clarified that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply to supplies cleared from the date of the notification only?
(iv) Whether the CESTAT was correct in stating that the question of invoking extended period of limitation for demand of amounts and imposition of penalties does not arise, when the demand was issued under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty?
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
It appears that the learned Tribunal while rendering the impugned decision, has relied on its earlier decision in the case of
Sujana Metal Products Limited
[1]
. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal and the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, we think that we cannot take a different view in this matter.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 03.6.2014 bnr
[1] 2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 (Bangalore)