9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 234 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common cenvat credit availed inputs had been used in respect of manufacture and clearance of the goods without payment of duty to SEZ - export or not - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad 2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , wherein, after taking into account the provisions of SEZ Act, 2009 has held that the amendment made with effect from 31.12.2008 has to be treated as retrospective and that even prior to 31.12.2008 supplies to SEZ were covered by the provisions of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules as the same are covered by the term definition of Export as defined in SEZ Act. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of duty on goods supplied to SEZ units. 2. Applicability of retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. Validity of duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer of TMT bars, availed cenvat credit on duty paid inputs and capital goods as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They supplied TMT bars to SEZ units and developers without payment of duty, leading the Department to demand payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 2,33,84,336/-, interest, and penalty. The issue revolved around the requirement to pay 10% of the sale value of goods supplied to SEZ units, as the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalties. 2. The Tribunal cited the case law of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad and Sujako Interiors Pvt.Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad to establish that the amendment to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, effective from 31.12.2008, should be treated as retrospective. The Tribunal noted that even prior to this amendment, supplies to SEZ were covered under the provisions of Rule 6, as per the SEZ Act. This interpretation was supported by decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court, leading the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 3. The validity of the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner was challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal, relying on the settled interpretation of Rule 6 and the retrospective application of the amendment, found the impugned order incorrect. Citing previous judgments and High Court decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order and providing consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules and the impact of retrospective amendments on such cases. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD illustrates the complex legal issues surrounding the interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and the application of amendments to such rules, providing clarity on the decision reached by the Tribunal in this case.
|
