9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004, which itself was inserted vide Notification dated 28.01.2005. Held that:- The learned CESTAT, New Delhi, considered the judgment rendered in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur [2013 (9) TMI 1108 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that said decision is regarding applicability of exclusion made under Rule 6 (6) on SEZ developers, therefore, the amendment by such notification brought into new type of clearance of exclusion under Rule 6 (6). In absence of indication to the effect in the statutory provision it cannot be held that said amendment should be considered as retrospectively. Appeal dismissed. - D.B. Central/Excise Appeal No. 109 / 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - MR GOPAL KRISHAN V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004 were not applicable in its case and they were covered by Rule 6 (6) (vii), therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods. The respondent No.1 passed order-in-original No.8/11 CE / JP-II-Addl. Comm. dated 02.02.2011 confirming the demand of ₹ 22,88,591/- being 10% amount and also imposed equal penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 on 020.5.2011 and pleaded that there was no need to give retrospective effect to the amendment carried by Notification No.6/2010-CF (Anti) dated 27.02.2010 because this notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.10.2016 whereby CESTAT upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of confirming the demand of ₹ 2,88,591/- but set aside the equivalent penalty imposed under Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of 2004 as show cause notice was issued within normal period of limitation and there was no suppression on the part of the appellant as it had cleared such goods without payment of duty only after obtaining the permission from the office of jurisdictional assistant commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned CESTAT, New Delhi has failed to examine the issue involved and overlooked the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. Learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 27.02.2010 substituting Clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004 by new close retrospectively. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the impugned order passed by learned CESTAT, New Delhi. The learned CESTAT after considering the facts gave finding that the appellant cleared his final products without payment of duty to Mega Power Projects and did not maintain separate accounts for inputs which are used for such final products. In such situation, the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (i) is attracted, which mandates that the assessee has to pay an amount equal to 10% of value of the exempted final products. Some exclusions are made for application of this provision under sub-Rule (6) of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
