9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was realized by the legislature only on 08/05/2012 and vide N/N. 25/2012, the subsequent exemption N/N. 12/2012 was introduced in the said rule. In the present case, it is not even a case of re-introduction of exemption notification. Exemption continued in as much as with the rescinding of Notification No. 6/2005, the subsequent Notification 12/2012 was immediately introduced. It is only in the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which are to the effect that there would be no requirement of reversal of any amount in case of the goods cleared under the exemption to Mega Power Project, N/N. 6/2006 was not replaced with N/N. 12/2012 - This inadvertent mistake stands clarified by the Board vide their clarification lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/03/2012. The new Notification No. 12/2012 also exempted the goods supplied to Mega Power Project. The appellant continued to avail the benefit of the said notification. 3. During the period 18/03/2012 to 07/05/2012 as the Appellant was availing the said exemption notification, Revenue entertained a view that they are required to pay 6% of the value of the said goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were availing Cenvat Credit on common inputs. Though there is a exception carved out in the said-Rule, as contained in Rule 6(6)(vii) but the sub- Rule referred to Notification No. 6/2006, which was no longer in existence. The said Notification No. 6/2006 was replaced with Notification No. 12/2012 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the said letter is being reproduced below:- 2. The said letter stated that continuance of reference of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2012 instead of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 int eh Rule 6(6)(vii) for the period 17.03.2012 to 08.05.2012 appeared to be an unintended technical lapse as the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 was superseded by Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The intention of the statue did not appear to be depriving the industry from the benefit availing under Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 during the intervening period i.e. between 17.03.2012 to 08.05.2012. So, the units in the zone were extended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the exemption subsequently. The same has to be treated as corrective action on the part of the Government. 8. In the present case we find that it is not even a case of re-introduction of exemption notification. Exemption continued in as much as with the rescinding of Notification No. 6/2005, the subsequent Notification 12/2012 was immediately introduced. It is only in the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which are to the effect that there would be no requirement of reversal of any amount in case of the goods cleared under the exemption to Mega Power Project, Notification No. 6/2006 was not replaced with Notification No. 12/2012. This inadvertent mistake stands clarified by the Board vide their clarificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
