https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329289 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. en-us Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329289 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329289