9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule would be applicable with effect from 10.09.2004 when the Cenvat Credit Rules came into existence. It is however, seen that Rule 6(6)(A) was not introduced by way of substitution but it was a new Rule inserted in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is no basis for extending the benefit of such insertion for period prior to 10.02.2008 - penalty and interest is consequently reduced - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/89909/14 - A/89064/17/SMB - Dated:- 17-8-2017 - Shri Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Raju Microtrol Sterilisation Services are in appeal against denial of cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered and distinguished on the ground the said order relates to Rule 6(6)(i) pertaining to goods and not 6(6)(A) pertaining to services. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the said issue has been examined in detail in the case of Sujana Metal Products (supra). In the said case after examining in detail the Tribunal has given the following finding:- 13. From the above, the following emerges. a. For the period upto 9-2-2005, the supplies made to SEZ units are to be treated as export both for extending export benefits and for levy of duty in terms of SEZ provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act. b. For the period from 10-2-2006, the definition of the term export under the Customs Act is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SEZ Act and the overriding effect to SEZ Act by Section 51 thereof. It is also seen that in para 10.1 the Tribunal has observed as followed:- 10.1 It is not disputed that the Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008 brings in amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of the CCR, 2004, by way of substitution . It is true that every case of amendment by substitution cannot be deemed to be having retrospective application. However, the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of WPIL Ltd., Indian Tobacco Association and Zile Singh v. State of Haryana Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 1] provide guidelines as to when an amendment made by way of substitution has to be given retrospective effect. 6. While interpreting the fact that Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
