Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (4) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants had cleared 419.63 MT of tubes and pipes to SEZ developers during the period from June, 2007 to November, 2007 without payment of excise duty - SCN issued - Held that: - application for stay and waiving the demand under the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal - place this matter before the President for constitution of the appropriate Larger Bench to decide the issue as to whether the amendment introduced to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 under Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008 is either clarificatory in nature and is retrospective in operation or not - E/3290/2009 - 406/2010-EX(PB) - Dated:- 30-4-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere was mere reduction in the penalty amount. Hence present appeal. 3. Drawing our attention to the Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-12-2008 whereby Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended and placing reliance in the decision in the matter of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 542 (Tri. - Bang.), the learned Advocated submitted that undisputedly the goods were supplied to SEZ developers and, therefore, considering the fact that the relevant provision of law was amended retrospectively, he was entitled to avail the cenvat credit in respect of the duty paid on inputs utilized in the manufacture of goods supplied to the SEZ developers. In that connection, attention was a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008. 6. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that the said amendment is to be construed as clarificatory in nature. In that connection, attention is also drawn to Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006. In the said circular it was noted in para 3 that, the procurement of goods from DTA by SEZ units and SEZ developers for their authorized operations would include supply of goods or providing services, from DTA to a SEZ unit or a SEZ developer, as has been denned under Section (2)(m) of SEZ Act would constitute "export". Further that sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the SEZ Act provides that w.e.f. 14-3-2006, the provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act, 1962, the SEZ Rules, 2003 and the SEZ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not paid. Certainly, such a provision is in the nature of exemption benefit to the assessee. Being so, it is not permissible for the Courts and Tribunal under the guise of interpretation either to restrict or expand the benefits assured under such provision. The provision will have to be read as is found in the statute book. Bearing in mind the same, it is difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the appellants that such a provision should be considered as clarificatory one and, therefore, should be held as retrospectively inforceable. 7. The Tribunal, however, in the matter of Sujana Metal Products has held that 'the amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be taken to be clarificatory in nature as the word "substituted" ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the said issue. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellants has also drawn our attention to an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak in the matter of M/s. Jindal Industries Limited on 15-6-2009 relating to the period from 29-9-2006 to 31-12-2008. 10. Nothing is brought to our notice which could disclose that Department has challenged the said order. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants that the department has accepted the said order and the same is revealed from the reply given by the Deputy Commissioner and CPIO under letter dated 29-9-2009. Though the contention is that the department has accepted the order, the same cannot be accepted on the basis of the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates