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 Against Application of Rule 6 (3) CCR 2004 in Goods Clearance Case</h1> <h3>M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Unit-III Versus CCE & ST- Jammu and Kashmir</h3> M/s Sudhir Power Ltd. Unit-III Versus CCE & ST- Jammu and Kashmir - 2021 (375) E.L.T. 686 (Tri. - Chan.) Issues:Whether Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 is applicable to the case involving the clearance of goods under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 under the SFIS SchemeRs.Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004The appellant cleared DG sets under the SFIS Scheme using Duty Credit Scrips. The issue was whether Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 applied to the clearance of goods under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006. The appellant argued that the provisions of Rule 6 (3) did not apply based on precedents such as the case of M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd. The appellant contended that the debits made under SFIS did not amount to exemption from duty payment. The Tribunal referenced the case of Tanfac Industries Ltd. where it was held that debits under a similar scheme did not equate to duty payment. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in the case of Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. supported the view that goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE were not exempted. The Tribunal emphasized that the taxing statute must be interpreted based on clear expressions and that circulars issued by CBEC were binding on Revenue, not on the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE were dutiable and not exempted, hence Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 did not apply.Issue 2: Interpretation of CBEC Circular and Legal PrecedentsThe appellant argued that the Circular No. 973/07/2013-CX did not mention the specific notification in question, and thus, the benefit of the circular should apply. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Revenue's presumption that Rule 6 (3) applied due to the absence of the notification in the circular was based on assumption and against legal principles. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., to highlight that the Revenue's interpretation was flawed. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's misinterpretation of the circular contravened legal mandates and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.ConclusionThe Tribunal held that Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 was not applicable to the case involving the clearance of goods under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 under the SFIS Scheme. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, based on the findings that the goods were dutiable and not exempted under the SFIS Scheme.
TaxTMI 