Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 1 - CESTAT, MUMBAINon reversal of 10 per cent of the value of the goods in their CENVAT credit account for goods cleared to SEZ Developers/Co-Developers - Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 50/2008, CE(NT), dated 31-12-2008 - invoking period of limitation - Held that:- Perusal of the show-cause notice discloses that the fact of non-maintenance of separate account of inputs used in dutiable goods and the goods supplied to SEZ was neither informed by the appellants to the department nor the said fact was disclosed in the statutory records filed by the appellants for the relevant period and this fact was admitted by Shri N.K. Nimkar, DGM (Excise) of the appellants in his statement dated 23-10-2008 - prima facie there was a case of suppression of relevant fact and hence it cannot be said that the department erred in invoking the extended period of limitation. Persuing the amendment which has been brought to Rule 6(6)(i), it is apparent that during the relevant period the benefit was essentially available only to the SEZ Units and not to the Developer of the Units. The same was sought to be extended to the Developer of the SEZ Unit and that too for their authorized operations and not for any other purpose, by way of amendment which came into force from 31-12-2008, which was much after the relevant period. Merely because the amending Notification stated that the clause was substituted for the original clause. It cannot be construed that it has come into operation retrospectively. Neither the Notification itself discloses the same nor any other material has been placed on record from which the intention of the Government could be disclosed that extension of the benefit to the Developer of SEZ was to be effective retrospectively. Mere word 'substitution' cannot amount to extending the benefit retrospective. Regarding penalty - This issue need not be dealt with while dealing with the stay application and can be dealt with at the time of final hearing of the matter - directed the appellants to deposit 60 per cent of the amount demanded under the impugned order along with interest thereon within a period of ten weeks. On deposit of such amount, the balance amount shall stand waived including the penalty amount till the disposal of the appeal.
|