https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776063 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, holding that the amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Central Excise Rules via N/N. 50/2008-CE(NT) dated 31.12.2008 is retrospective. The benefit of this amendment applies to clearances made to SEZ developers prior to the amendment date. Following the Karnataka HC ruling in Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T. v. Fosroc Chemicals, the tribunal found no merit in disallowing credit or demanding duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the demand with interest and penalty was set aside, confirming the respondent's eligibility to claim the benefit for the relevant period. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776063 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, holding that the amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Central Excise Rules via N/N. 50/2008-CE(NT) dated 31.12.2008 is retrospective. The benefit of this amendment applies to clearances made to SEZ developers prior to the amendment date. Following the Karnataka HC ruling in Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T. v. Fosroc Chemicals, the tribunal found no merit in disallowing credit or demanding duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the demand with interest and penalty was set aside, confirming the respondent's eligibility to claim the benefit for the relevant period. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776063