9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1351 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - effect of amendment - supply of goods to SEZ - Amendment of Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 amended in the year 2008 - whether amendment have retrospective or prospective effect? - Held that - The issue is covered by the decision of the cognate bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T. Bangalore vs- Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in which the cognate bench of this Court has held that the Amendment of Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 amended in the year 2008 has to be given retrospective effect as it was clarificatory in nature and has to be extended to the goods cleared to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operation. No Substantial Question of Law arises for our consideration - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in relation to goods cleared to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operation. Analysis: The judgment discussed the retrospective effect of the amendment made to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in 2008. The court highlighted that the amendment was clarificatory in nature and aimed to extend the benefits to goods cleared to a "developer" of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operation. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which declared SEZs as territories outside the Customs territory of India for undertaking authorized operations. The court noted that the SEZ Act overrides provisions of other laws, emphasizing the significance of the definition of "export" under the Act. The judgment referenced a circular issued by the C.B.E & C. to support the understanding that the amendment was retrospective in nature. The court concluded that the benefit of the amended Rule 6(6)(i) should be extended to goods cleared to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations. The Tribunal, in line with the judgment, granted relief to the Respondent-assessee in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the benefits available to SEZ equally apply to developers of SEZs, treating them at par with SEZs without any disparity. The Tribunal highlighted the clarificatory nature of the amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and its retrospective application. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in a previous case to support its decision to grant relief to the Respondent-assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the controversy in the case was covered by the decision of the cognate bench of the Court, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. In conclusion, both the judgment and the Tribunal's decision emphasized the retrospective nature of the amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and its application to goods cleared to developers of Special Economic Zones for their authorized operations. The decisions highlighted the parity between SEZs and developers in terms of benefits and the importance of clarifying the rules to ensure uniform application and interpretation in such cases.
|
