TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 2008, even to clearances prior to 31st December, 2008? Held that:- The question arising is essentially a question relating to duty of excise on the goods cleared to developer of S.E.Z. prior to 31st December, 2008 i.e. exempted or not under Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - there is no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal in view of Section 35L of the Act. The substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have any retrospective effect and whether the respondent is required to pay duty for the clearances effected to S.E.Z. Developers inasmuch [as] the Developer were included only on 31-12-2008 by the said amendment? 3. Mr. S.N. Kumar, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset raises a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal. It is pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount on the clearance of exempted goods. The respondent/assessee has resisted the show cause notice. However, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 28th October, 2009 confirmed the show cause notice demanding an amount of ₹ 24.26 lacs in terms of Rule 6(3) r/w Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, respondent/assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise dated 28th October, 2009. 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent/assessee filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 16th April, 2014, the Tribunal held that in view of the amendment made by substitution on 31st December, 2008, to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the clearances of goods to S.E.Z. developers even before 31st December, 2008 would be exempte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|