TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside duty demand.</h1> <h3>M/s. Rathi Super Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad</h3> M/s. Rathi Super Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of duty on goods supplied to SEZ units.2. Applicability of retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules.3. Validity of duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of TMT bars, availed cenvat credit on duty paid inputs and capital goods as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They supplied TMT bars to SEZ units and developers without payment of duty, leading the Department to demand payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 2,33,84,336/-, interest, and penalty. The issue revolved around the requirement to pay 10% of the sale value of goods supplied to SEZ units, as the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalties.2. The Tribunal cited the case law of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad and Sujako Interiors Pvt.Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad to establish that the amendment to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, effective from 31.12.2008, should be treated as retrospective. The Tribunal noted that even prior to this amendment, supplies to SEZ were covered under the provisions of Rule 6, as per the SEZ Act. This interpretation was supported by decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court, leading the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.3. The validity of the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner was challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal, relying on the settled interpretation of Rule 6 and the retrospective application of the amendment, found the impugned order incorrect. Citing previous judgments and High Court decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order and providing consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules and the impact of retrospective amendments on such cases.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD illustrates the complex legal issues surrounding the interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and the application of amendments to such rules, providing clarity on the decision reached by the Tribunal in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
