The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Gst Commissionerate, And Earlier Known As Commissioner Of Central Excise Customs And Service Tax Versus M/s. Azko Nobel Coating India Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1351 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – TMI
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 20-6-2018
C.E.A.No.58/2017
Central Excise
Dr. Vineet Kothari And Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.J.
Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, ADV.- For the Appellant
JUDGMENT
Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellant-Principal Commissioner of Central Tax has fairly submitted that the question arising in the present case is covered by the decision of the cognate bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Bangalore -vs- Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2015 (318) E.L.T. 240 (Kar.) in which the cognate bench of this Court has held that the Amendment of Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, amended in the year 2008, has to be given retrospective effect as it was clarifica
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and consequently application of Cenvat Credit Rules. Section 151 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, overrides the provision of all other laws for the time being in force, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein with the provision of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. This section therefore overreaches and eclipses the provisions of any other law containing provisions contrary to the SEZ Act, 2005. Though the definition of the word “export” in the SEZ Act, in Sec.2(m) included supply of goods to a “Unit” or “Developer” in clause (i) of sub-rule (6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the word “Developer” was conspicuously missing and only “unit” was included before the 2008 amendment. It is in that context the aforesaid amendment by Notification No.50/2008 C.E. (N.T), dated 31.12.2008 was brought in, to clarify the doubt. As the said amendment is clarificatory in nature, that is the reason why it was brought by way of “substitution”. The effect
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nature of exports.”
14. Therefore, it is clear, the said amendment has to be construed as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(i) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a “developer” of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations. Therefore, we do no see any merit in these appeals.
15. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue.
16. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.”
3. The Tribunal, in the present case, in the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 vide Annexure-A, in view of the aforesaid judgment, granted relief to the Respondent-assessee with the following observations:
“4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is opposed to the provisions of law as well as the judgments rendered by the higher judicial fora. He further submitted that the benefits available to SEZ equally apply to developer of SEZ. Througho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =