TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, amended in the year 2008, has to be given retrospective effect as it was clarificatory in nature and has to be extended to the goods cleared to a “developer” of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operation. No Substantial Question of Law arises for our consideration - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C.E.A.No.58/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2018 - Dr. Vineet Kothari And Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.J. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, ADV.- For the Appellant JUDGMENT Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellant- Principal Commissioner of Central Tax has fairly submitted that the question arising in the present case is covered by the decision of the cognate bench of this Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er laws for the time being in force, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein with the provision of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. This section therefore overreaches and eclipses the provisions of any other law containing provisions contrary to the SEZ Act, 2005. Though the definition of the word export in the SEZ Act, in Sec.2(m) included supply of goods to a Unit or Developer in clause (i) of sub-rule (6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 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 C.E. (N.T), dated 31.12.2008 was brought in, to clarify the doubt. As the said amendment is clarificatory in na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. 16. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 3. The Tribunal, in the present case, in the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 vide Annexure-A , in view of the aforesaid judgment, granted relief to the Respondent-assessee with the following observations: 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is opposed to the provisions of law as well as the judgments rendered by the higher judicial fora. He further submitted that the benefits available to SEZ equally apply to developer of SEZ. Throughout the SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006, SEZ developer has been treated at par with the SEZ and no disparity can exist between them. He further submitted that the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
