9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hers" reported in MANU/TN/6295/2018, in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the substitution of Rule 6(6)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the Notification No.50/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 31.12.2008 is clarificatory in nature and has to be given retrospective effect and therefore, the excise duty exemption is not only available to the SEZ Units but also to the Developers of SEZ. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is quoted below for ready reference. " 20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others [(2004) 8 SCC pg.1 brought about the distinguishing features between 'substitution' and 'supersession' and explained the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of this Court emphasised the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule and 'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule his brought into existence in its place." 21.We may also note that Circular No.29/2006-Cus, dated 27.12.2006, issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, pertaining to implementation of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, has notified as under: "4.In the light of the aforesaid provisions, with effect from 14.3.2006, Chapter XA of the Customs Act, 1962, the SEZ Rules, 2003, the SEZ (Customs Procedure) Regulations, 2003, and the exemption No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner vs. Sujana Metal Products Ltd [2016 (342) E.L.T.A115 (A.P.], Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal by answering the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration in favour of the Respondent/assessee and at the same time giving liberty to the Revenue, as granted by the High Court of Karnataka in Central Excise Appeal No.54 of 2015, dated 24.02.2016 and in the case of Principal C.C.E.Bangalore-I vs. Power Control Equipments (Unit-II). 23.In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration are answered in favour of the respondent/assessee. However, in the event the Revenue succeeds in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
