2020 (1) TMI 1640 - HC - Central Excise

Effective date of notification - Notification No.13/2016CE( NT) dated 01.03.2016 (effective from 01.04.2016) issued by the Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue amending the provision of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - retrospective effect or not - amendment to rule 6(3A) by Notification No.13/2016CE(NT) dated 01.03.2016 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is clarifactory in nature - HELD THAT - The appeal admitted on these two substantial questions of law - The appeal stands dismissed so far as the other questions are concerned. Post the tax appeal for final hearing on 13/02/2020. On the returnable date notify the matter on top of the board.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.13/2016CE(NT) dated 01.03.2016 regarding CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot to hear appeals.
3. Request for interim reliefs in Civil Applications.

Interpretation of Notification No.13/2016CE(NT) dated 01.03.2016:
The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the retrospective effect of the notification amending Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant raises questions concerning the retrospective nature and clarificatory status of the amendment. The High Court admits the appeal on the questions related to the retrospective effect and the clarificatory nature of the amendment, considering them as substantial questions of law. However, the other questions proposed are deemed not substantial and are dismissed. The matter is scheduled for a final hearing.

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot:
One of the questions raised in the appeal pertains to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot had the jurisdiction to hear the appeals of the respondent. The High Court dismisses this question along with another question, stating that they do not qualify as substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed in relation to these questions.

Request for Interim Reliefs in Civil Applications:
In the Civil Applications, the applicant seeks interim reliefs including a stay, direction for the respondent to furnish a bank guarantee, or deposit money equivalent to the refund received. However, the High Court declines to grant any interim relief, rejecting the Civil Application.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment revolves around the interpretation of Notification No.13/2016CE(NT) dated 01.03.2016 regarding the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot, and the request for interim reliefs in Civil Applications. The Court admits the appeal on specific questions, dismisses others, and rejects the request for interim reliefs. The matter is set for a final hearing, emphasizing the importance of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.