Commissioner of central Excise & Services Tax. Large Taxpayers Unit vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) (P.) ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 389 (Karnataka)
§ Facts :
Assessee – Manufacturer made clearance of their final products to SEZ Developers without payments of duty against letters of undertaking (LUT) during the period January, 2006 to December. 2006 CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs Attributable to supplies made to SEZ Developers was not reversed. The revenue sought reversal of appropriate CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 Of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.
The assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT. Bangalore and argued that in View amendment Carried out in Rule 6(6)(i) vide notification no. 50/2008- CE(NT) dated 31-12-2008, no reversal was required in case of Clearificatory and therefore has retrospective applicability. Tribunal allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Said order. The revenue Appealed Before the high court.
§ Held:
The high court observed that section 51 of the special economic Zones Act. 2005 overrides the provisions of all other laws for the time being in force. This section therefore overreaches and eclipses the provisions of any other law containing and eclipses the provisions of any other low containing provisions contrary to the SEZ act, 2005. Though the definition of the word ‘export’ in the SEZ act in section 2(M) included supply of goods to a ‘unit’ or ‘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 CE (N.T) dated 31-12-2008 was brought in, to clarify the doubt. Further, by reason of the aforementioned amendment no substantive right has been taken away nor has any penal consequence been imposed. Only an obvious mistake was sought to be removed therefore, it was mistake was sought to be removed thereby. It was held that the said amendment is Clarificatory in nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment