9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e placed in the case of SAINT-GOBAIN GYPROC INDIA LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE THANE I [ 2019 (2) TMI 1557 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that notwithstanding a subsequent amendment in rule 6(6) to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to include developer of special economic zones within the escapement covered of rule 6 of the said Rules, the categorization as exports would itself suffice to exclude the applicability of the liability prescribed therein. Accordingly, demand of ₹ 1,97,01,669/- and corresponding interest and penalty are not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Early Hearing Application No.20371 of 2021 in Central Excise Appeal No. 219 of 2010 - Final Order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and we find that as regards the demand of ₹ 1,97,01,669/-, we find that the demand was made on the ground that the appellants are supplying excisable goods to SEZ developer, which is exempted under the Notification No.4/2004-ST and the appellant is required to reverse 10% of the value of the exempted excisable goods, in terms of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We find that by the Finance Act, 2012 under Section 144, Rule 6 was amended as under: 144. Amendment of rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. -(7) In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 7 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amendment Period of effect of amendment (1) (2) (3) Sub-rule (6A) of rule 6 of the CENV AT Credit Rules, 2004 as inserted by CENV AT Credit (Amendment) Rules, 2011 vide notification number GS.R 134(E), dated the 1st March,2011 [312011-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 1st March, 2011]. In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 6, after sub-rule (6), the following sub- rule shall be inserted with effect from the 10th day of February, 2006, namely. From 10th February, 2006 to 28 th February, 2011. (6A) The provisions of sub-rules ( 1), (2), (3) and ( 4) shall not be applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gap in operationalising of the exemptions between two different arms of the Central Government, i.e., Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce, should not have created an artificial, and uncontemplated, distinction between such clearances effected to special economic zones. Section 2(m) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 includes supply from domestic tariff area to a unit or developer in the definition of export and section 51 of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 mandates that this statute would prevail over any other in the event of a conflict. 5. Therefore, notwithstanding a subsequent amendment in rule 6(6) to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to include developer of special economic zones within the escapement covered of rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the 2004-Rules and the developers and units were not given same treatment. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 13. From the above, the following emerges. a. For the period upto 9-2-2005, the supplies made to SEZ units are to be treated as export both for extending export benefits and for levy of duty in terms of SEZ provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act. b. For the period from 10-2-2006, the definition of the term export under the Customs Act is not consistent with the definition of the term export under the SEZ Act. However, the definition of the term export under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term export under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
