https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233875 The HC held that the substituted sub-rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004-Rules, which removes discrimination between developers and units in SEZs regarding Cenvat credit, is clarificatory and retrospective. The amendment aligns the rule with the SEZ Act and Article 14 of the Constitution by treating supplies to developers as exports, thereby entitling them to the same benefits as units. The court ruled that the substituted provision applies from the original enforcement date of the 2004-Rules, not just from the date of amendment, to correct an inadvertent omission and avoid constitutional infirmity. The excise duty principles distinguish domestic consumption from export, and the amendment merely clarifies existing law without imposing new obligations. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:04:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233875 The HC held that the substituted sub-rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004-Rules, which removes discrimination between developers and units in SEZs regarding Cenvat credit, is clarificatory and retrospective. The amendment aligns the rule with the SEZ Act and Article 14 of the Constitution by treating supplies to developers as exports, thereby entitling them to the same benefits as units. The court ruled that the substituted provision applies from the original enforcement date of the 2004-Rules, not just from the date of amendment, to correct an inadvertent omission and avoid constitutional infirmity. The excise duty principles distinguish domestic consumption from export, and the amendment merely clarifies existing law without imposing new obligations. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233875