2009 (5) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Special Economic Zone. The appellants supplied their products to the developers without payment of duty. They availed input credit for the manufacture of the goods supplied. The contention of the Revenue is that the credit attributable to this supply to the developer would not be covered under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and therefore, the appellants should pay 10% of the value of the goods in terms of the said rule. Taking this view, the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice. Further, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. 2. The learned Advocate invited our attention to para 15 of the O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lable even to developer. Further, our attention was also invited to Rule 27 of the SEZ Act. Even if it is assumed that there is 'an inconsistency between the Cenvat Credit Rules and the SEZ Act, it was argued strongly that the SEZ Act has an overriding effect. In view of this, Section 51 of the said Act, is reproduced below : "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for time being in force or in any instrument having-effect by virtue of any law other than this Act". 4. Similar provision was available in the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA). The said provision has been interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of NGEF Ltd. v. Chandra Developers....