2018 (7) TMI 1113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Garg (Advocate) & Ms. Stuti Saggi (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Original No. 48/Commissioner/M-II/2009 dated 18.11.2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant were manufacturers of MS Bars ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issue was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original. The appellant contested before the Original Authority that in view of Clause V of sub Rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 appellants were not required to pay the said amount which was sought to be paid by them through the show cause notice dated 02.04.2009. They further contended that they were covered by Clause (i) of sub Rule....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded to cover developer of the SEZ. Due to the said amendment w.e.f. 31.12.2008, the goods cleared at nil rate of duty to SEZ developers were entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of duties paid on input or input services going into manufacture of such goods. He has further submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Union of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported at 2013 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....view of said amended provision amount confirmed through impugned Order-in-Original is not sustainable. 4. The learned AR has submitted that CBEC Circular No. 267/52/2008 - CX dated 07.01.2009 clarifying that the said amended provision, amended through said Notification dated 31.12.2008 was prospective. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records we find that there ha....