9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1746 - AT - Central ExciseInterpretation of statute - effect of N/N. 50/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 31-12-2008 - Amendment in Rule 6(6) of CCR - retrospective or prospective? - clearances were made to SEZ developers prior to 31.12.2008 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res Integra. In the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT LTD AND OTHERS 2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT it was held that amendment has to be construed as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(1) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Revenue's challenge to the Order dated 26.09.2011 by the Commissioner (Appeals) Raipur regarding clearances of cement without payment of duty to SEZ developer under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. Analysis: The dispute in this case arose because the Department believed that clearances made to SEZ developers without payment of duty were akin to clearance of exempted goods, invoking Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The Department demanded an amount of Rs. 30,36,120/- as 10% of the value of exempted clearance to SEZ developers, along with interest and penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that such clearances to SEZ developers are in the nature of export and not subject to the 10% payment requirement under Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Additionally, the demand was dropped on the grounds of being time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was not issued within the normal period of limitation, with no suppression of facts noted. The key argument presented by the Department was based on the amendment to Rule 6(6) by Notification No. 50/2008-CE(NT) dated 31.12.2008, which extended the benefit of non-reversal under Rule 6(3) for clearances made to SEZ developers. The Department contended that since the clearances in this case were made before 31.12.2008, the demand should be upheld. However, the opposing counsel argued that the amendment should be considered retrospective, citing precedents like Commissioner Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India Pvt. Ltd.) and Surya Roshni Ltd Vs. CCE, Rohtak, where similar views were upheld. The issue of the retrospective nature of the amendment was addressed in the case of Fosroc Chemicals by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Court emphasized the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which deemed SEZs as territories outside the Customs territory of India for export purposes. The Court highlighted that the amendment to Rule 6(6) was clarificatory in nature to include "developer" alongside "unit" for SEZ operations. This clarification was deemed retrospective, and the benefit of the amended Rule 6(6)(i) was to be extended to goods cleared to a developer of an SEZ for authorized operations. Given the clear precedent set by the Karnataka High Court and followed by the Tribunal in various decisions, the Tribunal in this case found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the established legal interpretations and precedents.
|
