Retrospective substitution of Cenvat Credit Rule 6(6)(i) extended exemption to SEZ developer clearances from inception.

Substitution of Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was treated as clarificatory rather than substantive because it aligned the rules with the SEZ Act scheme, under which supplies to a unit or developer for authorised operations are regarded as exports. The omission of reference to a developer in the earlier wording was viewed as a drafting defect, not a legislative choice to deny the benefit. The amended provision was therefore construed as retrospective, and exemption from reversal of Cenvat credit applied to clearances made to SEZ developers from the inception of the rule as amended.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment substituting Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.) dated 31.12.2008, extending the exemption from reversal of Cenvat credit to clearances made to a developer of a special economic zone, was prospective or retrospective.

Analysis: The substitution of a statutory provision is to be read as if the amended words were always part of the original rule, unless such construction produces repugnancy, inconsistency, or absurdity. The amendment did not create a new burden or take away any substantive right; it only aligned the Cenvat Credit Rules with the scheme of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, under which supplies to a unit or developer for authorized operations are treated as exports. The omission of the words relating to a developer in the earlier rule was treated as a drafting defect, and the amendment by substitution was regarded as clarificatory. The surrounding statutory scheme and the contemporaneous circular also supported the view that supplies to SEZ developers were intended to receive the same treatment as supplies to SEZ units.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be retrospective, and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(i) was available to clearances made to SEZ developers from the inception of the rule as amended.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was upheld, and the revenue appeal failed because the amended rule was construed as extending the exemption retrospectively to SEZ developer clearances.

Ratio Decidendi: A substituted provision that merely clarifies the existing legislative intent and does not alter substantive rights is ordinarily construed retrospectively as part of the original enactment.

---