https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245144 The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found that the demand raised under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on goods cleared to SEZ developers was not justified. The Tribunal held that the amendment to Rule 6 by Notification No.50/2008 had only prospective effect, making Rule 6(3) applicable to the appellant for the period before 31.12.2008. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal ruled that clearances to SEZ developers should be treated as exports, not exempted goods, thus setting aside the demand and emphasizing the need for separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245144 The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found that the demand raised under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on goods cleared to SEZ developers was not justified. The Tribunal held that the amendment to Rule 6 by Notification No.50/2008 had only prospective effect, making Rule 6(3) applicable to the appellant for the period before 31.12.2008. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal ruled that clearances to SEZ developers should be treated as exports, not exempted goods, thus setting aside the demand and emphasizing the need for separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245144