https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440672 The Tribunal held that the amendment in Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allowing retrospective application, rendered the demand for 10% value of goods supplied to SEZ developers unsustainable. The separate judgment in Ultratech Cement Limited further clarified that supplies to SEZ developers were not exempted goods, and the provisions of Rule 6(1), 6(2), and 6(3) were inapplicable. Consequently, the demands under Rule 6(3)(b) were set aside based on the retrospective application of the clarificatory amendment. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:11:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440672 The Tribunal held that the amendment in Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allowing retrospective application, rendered the demand for 10% value of goods supplied to SEZ developers unsustainable. The separate judgment in Ultratech Cement Limited further clarified that supplies to SEZ developers were not exempted goods, and the provisions of Rule 6(1), 6(2), and 6(3) were inapplicable. Consequently, the demands under Rule 6(3)(b) were set aside based on the retrospective application of the clarificatory amendment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440672