TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 - Dated:- 16-2-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) And Ashok Jindal, Member (J) For the Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Grover, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay applications are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The appellant are manufacturers of plywood. During 2007-2008 to 2008-2009 they made supplies of their final product to SEZ developers without payment of duty, as supplies to SEZ/SEZ developers are treated as export. The point of dispute is as to whether the Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods, which were supplied to SEZ developers would be admissible or not. The Department being of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 (297) E.L.T. 166 (Chhattisgarh), wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that the supplies to SEZ developers during the period prior to December 2008 are to be treated as export and Cenvat credit in respect of inputs would be admissible in terms of Rule 6 (6) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Hon'ble High Court in this case has held that the amendment to Rule 6 (6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 made by the Government w.e.f. 31st December, 2008 is to be treated as retrospective amendment. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct, that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived for he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (supra), Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak (supra) and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon'ble High Court has specifically held that the amendment to Rule 6 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 31/12/08 has to be treated as retrospective amendment and for the period prior to 31/12/08 also the supplies to SEZ developers have to be treated as exports and the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods supplied to SEZ developers would be admissible. Prima facie, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
