2014 (10) TMI 1066 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - clearances to SEZ Developers even prior to 2008 - specific amendments made to Cenvat Credit Rules, whether the said amendments were prospective or retrospective? - HELD THAT - This Court had an occasion to consider the said question in 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 , wherein it was held that amendment has to be construed as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(i) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorised operations. Therefore, there are no merit in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue against the CESTAT order, ruling that Cenvat can be availed for clearances to SEZ Developers even before 2008 amendments. The Court held that the amendments were retrospective, benefiting SEZ developers.