TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2013 (5) TMI 460 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd [2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the amendment to Rule 6(6) to include SEZ developer with effect from 31.12.2008 has retrospective effect from 2004 onwards and therefore no reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to SEZ developer is required under law. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/1004/2011-SM - Final Order No. 20607/ 2016 - Dated:- 3-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr Sathya Vageswaran V, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Parashiva Murthy, A.R ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce controverting the allegations in the show-cause notice and pleaded that the goods were supplied to SEZ developer and the same being removed under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules under ARE-1, the same were in the nature of export and as per SEZ law and the Central Excise law, and as per the provisions of Rule 6(6)(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 input credit on such clearances are allowed and requested to drop the duty and interest. The original authority vide order dated 08.09.2009 confirmed the duty demand along with interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04, the word Developer was conspicuously missing and only unit was included before the 2008 amendment. It is in that context the aforesaid amendment by Notification No. 50/2008 CE (NT) dated 31.12.2008 was brought in, to clarify the doubt. As the said amendment is clarificatory in nature, that is the reason why it was brought by way of substitution . The effect of the said substitution is that the Cenvat Rules 2004 are to be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the Rules of 2004 with pen and ink and the words to a developer of the SEZ for their authorized operation was there from the inception. This is the understanding of the Government as is also clear from the circular issued by the CBEC bearing No. 29/2006-Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
