9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of SEZ for inserting or to a developer of special economic zone for their authorized operations was made on 31.12.2008 - the amendment in Rules 6 (6) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules was clarificatory in nature and will apply retrospectively - the provision of Rules 6 (1), (2), (3) & (4) of CENVAT Credit Rules are not applicable in the instant case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/2521/2011 - Final Order No. 60677/2017 - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Satyapal, AR for the Appellant Sh. Ravi Chopra, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R appearing for the Revenue submits that the goods cleared to SEZ Developers are exempted goods in terms of the definition of exempted goods under CCR 2004. In this case, the goods were cleared to the contractor on account of SEZ Developers. Hence, the same cannot be considered as exempted goods. He further added that the clause (iv) to sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules has been amended vide Notification No. 50/2008-CE(NT) dt. 31.12.2008 and the words or to a developer of special economic zone for their authorized operations have been inserted w.e.f. 31.12.2008. Hence, prior to 31.12.2008, the provision of Rules 6(3) were applicable to the clearances made to a Developers of SEZ. As the clearances have been made between April 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made on 31.12.2008. However, it has been held by the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh as follows:- 43. Initially, sub-rule 6(6)(i) provided that the provisions of sub-rules 6(1) to 6(4) of the 2004-Rules will not be applicable in case the excisable products are removed without payment of duty and cleared to a unit in a SEZ. 44. The relevant point to note is that the 2004-Rules as initially envisaged provided benefit to the goods cleared to a unit in SEZ only and not to the developer though under the SEZ Act the position of the developer as well as the unit was one and the same; they were in the same class, entitled to the same treatment. This appears to be an inadvertent omission. 45. It appears that the aforesaid mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported. This is also framework of the Excise Act. As the supply of the goods to a developer of SEZ is treated to be export, there appears to be no reason why this benefit was not there, except that it was due to a mistake or inadvertence that the word developer was not initially included in the sub-rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004-Rules and the developers and units were not given same treatment. 51. It is settled rule of interpretation that rule or notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. However, Justice G.P. Singh in his book Principles of Statutory Interpretation 12th Edition, 2010 at page 1021 observes, A rule, which is not in terms retrospective, may have retrospective operation because of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
