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

2019 (8) TMI 1686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar in Sub-Rule 6(6)(vii), even though the same was not in force during the relevant period and the said mistake was rectified on 08/05/2012, when Notification No. 25/2012, was issued. The subsequent exemption Notification No. 12/2012 was introduced in the said rule 6(6)(vii) thereafter. As is seen from the clarification issued by the Board, the Ministry of Finance vide their letter F. No. 267/49/2013-CX.8 dated 30th June, 2015 caused the unintended mistake, to be rectified later. The Supreme Court in the case of W.P.I.L. LTD V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [ 2005 (2) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT ] dealt with an identical situation and observed that when it was the consistent policy of the Government to grant exemption to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ised Representative for the respondent ORDER The subject appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), dated 30.11.2017, by which the order of Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, has been upheld conforming the demand of ₹ 21,85,773/- on the appellant in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short the Credit Rules ) read with Section 11A (10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (For short the Excise Act ), along with a penalty under Section 15(1) of The Credit Rules and interest in terms of rule 11 AA of the Excise Act read with Rule 14 of Credit Rules. The demand pertained to the period 17.03.2012 to 7.05.2012. Being aggrieved with the impugned order the appellant is in appeal b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s clearing their final products to Mega Power Project by claiming exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, there was no requirement of payment of 6% of the duty in respect of said goods under the provisions of Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(6)(vii), which provided an exception to the said rule. There is no dispute about this fact. The Notification No. 6/2006-CE (supra) was rescinded on 17/03/2012 and was replaced with a new Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17/03/2012. The new Notification No. 12/2012, also exempted the goods supplied to Mega Power Project as in the past by Notification No. 6/2006. The appellant continued to avail the benefit of the said Notification. 5. During the period 18/03/2012 to 07/05/2012, the Appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8/05/2012, when Notification No. 25/2012, was issued. The subsequent exemption Notification No. 12/2012 was introduced in the said rule 6(6)(vii) thereafter. 7. When this position was brought to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, it was clarified vide their letter F. No. 267/49/2013-CX.8 dated 30th June, 2015, which is as under:- 2. The said letter stated that continuance of reference of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2012 instead of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 int eh Rule 6(6)(vii) for the period 17.03.2012 to 08.05.2012 appeared to be an unintended technical lapse as the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 was superseded by Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Government granting exemption to compounded rubber, withdrawal of the exemption by notification was an inadvertent error, which was made good by introducing the exemption subsequently. The same has to be treated as a corrective action on the part of the Government. 9. In the present case, we find that it is not even the case of re-introduction of exemption notification. Exemption continued in as much as with the rescinding of Notification No. 6/2005, the subsequent Notification 12/2012 was immediately introduced. It is only in the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Credit Rules, which are to the effect that there would be no requirement of reversal of any amount in case of the goods cleared under the exemption to Mega Power Project, Not .....

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