2013 (7) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Special Economic Zone without payment of duty as reported under Section 26 of the Special Economic Zone 2005. Lower authorities were of the view that the appellant should have reversed the cenvat credit availed on the manufacturing of such final products or in the alternative, should have paid 10% of the value of the cement cleared without payment of duty to Special Economic Zone or Special Economic Zone developers. Coming to such a conclusion show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated after following the due process of law and has resulted in confirmation of demand of imposition of penalties and interest on the amount of demand raised. 3. Ld. counsel would submit that the issue is no more res-integra as this Tribunal in the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r: 13. From the above, the following emerges.a. For the period upto 9/2/2006, the supplies made to SEZ units are to be treated as export both for extending export benefits and for levy of duty in terms of SEZ provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act. b. For the period from 10/2/2006, the definition of the term export under the Customs Act is not consistent with the definition of the term export under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term export under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export. c. Since both during the period prior to and w.e.f. 10/2/2006, the supplies made to SEZ are held to be export, the application of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iven same treatment. 51. It is settled rule of interpretation that rule or notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. However, Justice GP Singh in his book 'principles of Statutory Interpretation' 12th Edition, 2010 at page 1021 observes, 'A rule, which is not in terms retrospective, may have retrospective operation because of the retrospective operation of the enactment in respect of which it is made. So is the case here. The substituted sub-rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004-Rules should have retrospectively in order not to discriminate and to be in consonance with the nature of excise duty. 52. In our opinion, the rule is clarificatory, corrects an obvious mistake, removes discrimination, and prov....