2018 (6) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I 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.
Dr. Vineet Kothari And Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.J. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, ADV.- For the Appellant JUDGMENT Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellant-Principal Commissioner of Central Tax has fairly submitted that the question arising in the present case is covered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2005, overrides the provision of all other laws for the time being in force, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein with the provision of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. This section therefore overreaches and eclipses the provisions of any other law containing provisions contrary to the SEZ Act, 2005. Though the definition of the word "export" in the SEZ Act, in Sec.2(m) included supply of goods to a "Unit" or "Developer" in clause (i) of sub-rule (6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the word "Developer" was conspicuously missing and only "unit" was included before the 2008 amendment. It is in that context the aforesaid amendment by Notification No.50/2008 C.E. (N.T), dated 31.12.2008 was brought in, to clarify the doubt. As th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessees and against the Revenue. 16. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed." 3. The Tribunal, in the present case, in the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 vide Annexure-A, in view of the aforesaid judgment, granted relief to the Respondent-assessee with the following observations: "4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is opposed to the provisions of law as well as the judgments rendered by the higher judicial fora. He further submitted that the benefits available to SEZ equally apply to developer of SEZ. Throughout the SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006, SEZ developer has been treated at par with the SEZ and no disparity can exist between them. He further submitted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X