2018 (9) TMI 823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1944 has been filed by the appellant- Firm so as to challenge the order dated 28th of October, 2016 passed by Principal Bench, Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in Appeal No.E-55640/2013 to the extent of confirming the demand of duty and interest with grant of extraordinary cost to the appellant. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Electric Insulator and was availing Cenvat Credit Duty paid on inputs. The appellant cleared some of the furnished excisable goods to Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project without payment of duty under Notification No.46/2008-CE dated 14.08.2008. The appellant firm was not maintaining separate account of inputs used for manufac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n No.6/2010 CE/Anti dated 27.02.2010 has to be taken as effective from the date of original notification. While relying upon certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that exemption notification will have a retrospective effect from the date of original notification as it was not said to be expressly to be prospective, the object of the Government was to give some benefit to substituted port as given to listed ports. In view of above background of the facts and doctrine of fairness, exemption/beneficial notification is to be given retrospective effect-intent objection of the legislation can be culled out from the background facts. As per pleadings on 12.09.2012 appellant deposited Rs. 11,44,291/- being 50% of the amount o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Based Competitive Bid by notification dated 14.08.2008 by insertion of Serial No.91A. According to counsel for the appellant, no amendment was made in Clause (vii) of sub Rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004, according to which provision of Rule 6 (1), (2) (3) and (4) which were reversal of Cenvat credit when the inputs are used in manufacturing of both dutiable as well as exempted final products are not applicable in the case of certain types of supplies made without payment of duty. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no need to give retrospective effect to the amendment carried out by the notification dated 27.02.2010 because this notification substitutes the original provision of Clau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de Notification No.6/2010 CE dated 27.02.2010 should be clarified and imply to the clearance made in the months of May and June 2009 as illegal, and unsustainable. The learned CESTAT further held that there is nothing in the amendment notification which indicate such presumption, therefore, the amendment carried out by the Notification No.6/2010 CE cannot be given retrospective effect as claimed by the appellant. The learned Tribunal while considering all the judgments cited before it, partly allowed the appeal. In our opinion, the learned CESTAT, New Delhi, considered the judgment rendered in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur reported in 2016 (334) ELT 105 (Tri. Mumbai) held that said decision is regarding applicabil....