AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "8. In this regard, I observe that prior to 31.12.2008, in terms of the said Rule 6(6)(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, "the provisions of sub-rules (2), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are cleared to a unit in a SEZ." This Rule was further amended vide Notification No. 50/2008-CE(N.T.) dated 31.12.2008, The Notification is reproduced herein below- Notification No. 50/2008-Central Excise (N.T.) New Delhi the 31 December, 2008 G.SR. (E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Central Excise Act 1944 (1 of 1944) and section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, namely: (1) (1) These rules may be called the CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2008 (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 6, in sub-rule (6), for clause (1), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:- "(i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2008. In the case of Indian Tobacco Association (supra), the question of interpretation of word 'substitution' appearing in the amendment of a notification extending the scope / benefit of DEPB to various additional port/ICD was involved. In the facts of that case, initially under the DEPB scheme, Inland container port was not included in list of ports of registration. On representation from association of exporters, name of one such port substituted' in the notification. It was held that the substitution would have retrospective effect from date of original notification on the ground mainly that (i) it was not stated expressly to be prospective (i) only an obvious mistake was corrected without recourse to facility in the notification of permission from any other port and (ii) the substituted port was otherwise eligible for benefit and all along had been granted duty exemption. In the case of Zile Singh (supra) also the effect of an amendment in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 by Act No. 15 of 1994 whereby the word "after" was by the word "upto" was considered by the Hon'ble Court and held to be retrospective in nature. The ratio of these cases is not applicable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) is neither clarificatory nor retrospective and accordingly reject the plea of the appellant on this score. In the case of L&T Ltd 2000 (119) ELT 51 (T-LB), similar amendment was made in the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1994 [Modvat Credit Rules] vide a notification in 1992 to allow credit in respect of goods cleared to FTZ or EOU in terms of Rule 57C. The Tribunal held the said amending notification to be prospective in nature. The ratio of that case is squarely applicable to the case in hand. In the present case, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1994, amended Rule 6(6) by issuing Notification No. 50/2008-CE(NT) dated 31.12.2008 and declared that this amendment shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. I accordingly reject the plea of the appellant. 13. Further to find the intention of the legislature in this regard, I place reliance upon the Circular dated 03/04/2008 issued by the ADG(EP), Govt. of India which clarified without any ambiguity that cenvat credit is not available for inputs used in the finished product supplied to developer of SEZ in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) (3) Sub Sub-rule (6A) of rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as inserted by CENVAT Credit (Amendment) Rules, 2011 vide notification number G.S.R. 134(E), dated the 1st March, 2011 [3/2011-Central Excise (N.T.). dated the 1st March, 2011. In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 6, after sub-rule (6), the following sub-rule shall be inserted with effect from the 10th day of R. February, 2006, namely:- "(6A) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the taxable services are provided, without payment of service tax, to a Unit in a Special Economic Zone or to a Developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorised operations." From 10th February, 2006 to 28th February, 2011 14. The above retrospective amendment carried out to provide the benefit of Rule 6(6A) of CCR w.e.f. 10.02.2006 to the supplies made to SEZ developer clearly indicates the intent of the legislature to restrict the retrospective operation in respect of service tax credit only and not to the input credit as argued by the appellant in absence of any similar amendment or clarification issued by the department in respect of notification no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of the first Act are being invoked. Even in the absence of a definition of the term in the subject statute, a definition contained in another statute cannot be adopted since a word may mean different things depending the setting and context." "The movement of goods from Domestic Tariff area to the Special Economic has been treated as export by a legal fiction created under the SEZ Act, 2005. A legal Zone fiction is to be restricted to the statute which created it." The said decision of the Hon'ble High Court has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported at 2010 (255) ELT A115 (SC). Similarly, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Shyamaraju & Co. India P Ltd 2010 (256) ELT 193 (Kar) and in M/s Biocon Limited -2011 (267) ELT 28 (Kar) also held that the definition of 'export' under SEZ Act cannot be adopted for the purpose of Customs Act. Moreover, in the case of CCE, Thane-1 V/s The Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. 12010-TIOL-1256-CESTAT-MUM] the term 'export' has been further clarified regarding supply of goods to SEZ, it held in Para 11 as follows:- ..............."However, the ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty/tax paid on the input or input services to remove cascading effect and laid specific condition for availing the benefit of the same with their wisdom. Though Rule 18 and 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have been made applicable to supplies of goods to SEZ units for the purpose of rebate vide Circular No. 06/2010-Cus. dated 19.03.2010 and 29/2006-Cus dated 27.12.2006 by the Government with specific and restrictive purpose only. The same cannot be made applicable to the cases falling under the ambit of a different statute altogether having different provisions and purpose of their enactment. Moreover, no such clarification treating supplies of goods to SEZ developer as 'export' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been brought by the appellant in their favour for consideration. In absence of which and in view of the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Essar Steel Ltd supra, the contention that the supply of goods to SEZ developers amounts to 'export' (physical export) of goods under bond as covered under clause (v) of Rule 6(6) of CCR, 2004 is liable to be rejected. 17. I also find that if the contention of the appellant is acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) The above views have been expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd vs. CCE. reported in (1994(73) ELT.769 (S.C.). holding that ; "a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification" (iii) Further, in case of CCE vs. Sunder Steels Ltd., reported in [2005(181) ELT. 154 (SC.)) the Apex Court has also held that : "the Notification has to be interpreted on its wording No words, not used in the notification can be added" (iv) Also, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg Mills vs. CCE reported in [1995 (77) ELT.474 (SC)) observed that : "since it was a case of exemption from day, there was no question of any liberal Construction to extend the term and scope of the notification as such exemption notification must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely wi....