TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... malatha For the Respondent : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam JUDGMENT DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. Both the learned counsel at the Bar submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by a recent judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate -Vs- S.P.Fabricators Pvt Ltd., and Others reported in MANU/TN/6295/2018 , in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the substitution of Rule 6(6)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the Notification No.50/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 31.12.2008 is clarificatory in nature and has to be given retrospective effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centring around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case, this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphasised the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule and 'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied, mutatis mutandis, in case procurement by SEZ units and SEZ developer from DTA for their authorized operations. 22.In the light of the above, we are in respectful agreement with the decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., and in the case of FOSROC Chemicals India (P) Ltd . The learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the decision in the case of Steel Authority of India has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Limited , which was confirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner vs. Sujana Metal Products Ltd [2016 (342) E.L.T.A115 (A.P.] , Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
