2014 (2) TMI 1011

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... John The applicant is a manufacturer of cement. They had supplied cement to developers of SEZ, claiming it as export, as per CBEC Circular No.29/06, dated 27.12.2006. Revenue was of the view that since no excise duty is paid on final product, namely, cement, the applicant had to pay 10% of the value of cement, as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, especially because....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plied to units in SEZ, but not goods supplied to developers of SEZ. However, subsequently the sub-Rule was amended with effect from 31.12.2008 vide Notification No.50/08-CE(NT), dated 31.12.2008 to specifically include clearance to SEZ developers also under Rule 6(6). Revenue was of the view that this amendment was not applicable for the prior period and, therefore, 10% of the price of cement was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mits that the Revenue had issued another Show Cause Notice to the applicant on the ground that they had manufactured clinkers and used it in the manufacture of cement supplied to SEZs on which excise duty had not been paid and, therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Notification No.67/95 for clinkers captively consumed for producing such cement supplied to SEZ developers and excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffect and not retrospective effect. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L & T Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T.51 (Tribunal-LB). He also relies on another decision of Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills Vs Union of India reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) which deals with the issue, whether retrospective e....