9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended on 31.12.2008 has already been settled by the decisions relied on by the ld. Advocate in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT LTD AND OTHERS [ 2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held that the amendment took place in Rule 6 (6) (i) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. The period in dispute is from April 2007 to December, 2008. During the disputed period, the appellant had cleared excisable final Products to the SEZ developer without Payment of Central Excise duty. Supply of goods to the SEZ developer was considered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. S.T., Bangalore vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 240 (Kar.), Commissioner vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., reported in 2015 (317) E.L.T. A 200, (2.50) (A.P.) Union of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T. 166 (Chattisgarh) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (6) (i) in 2008 has to be construed as retrospective in nature and the said statutory provision will be extended to the goods cleared to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorised operations. 6. In view of the fact that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res-integra, being covered by various decisions of the judicial forums, I do not find any merits in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
