Whether Press Reporters May Be Allowed ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 323/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The amendment to Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which brought supplies to SEZ developers within the category of exports, has retrospective effect, so that supplies made before the amendment are to be treated as exports for the purposes of that rule.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 323/2013 dated 02/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Bangalore Paints Ltd. No.149/150, Bandapura Village, Marsur Post, Anekal Taluk, Upkar Layout Bangalore 562 106 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA Hiregange & Associates Chartered Accountants #1010, 1st Floor, Above Corporation Bank 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore- 560 041 For the Appellant
Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 01/01/2015 Date of Decision: 01/01/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20008 / 2015
Per: B.S.V. MURTHY
The issue involved is supply of goods to SEZ developer during the period prior to the amendment of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules whereby the supplies to developers was also brought into the category of exports. We find that issue is no longer res integra and this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011 (273) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Bang.)] had taken a view that the amendment has retrospective effect. Further he also relies upon the decision of the Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Union of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2013 (297) E.L.T. 166 (Chhattisgarh)]. In view of the above, we consider it appropriate that the appeal itself can be finally decided instead of deciding the stay alone. Accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
iss
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free