9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etrospective in nature. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision of the cognate bench of this Court - no Substantial Question of Law arises for consideration and the appeal is liable to be dismissed - appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore 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 the said amendment is clarificatory in nature, that is the reason why it was brought by way of "substitution". The effect of the said "substitution" is that the Cenvat Rules 2004 are to be read and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid judgment, granted relief to the Respondent-assessee with the following observations: "3.2 It is pertinent to note the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex. & S.T., Bangalore vs. M/s. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that the said amendment in Rule 6 has to be considered as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(i) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations. Similarly in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2015 (315) E.L.T. 238] wherein the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has allowed the benefit to the assessee by holding that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
