COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE III Vs. ELINS SWITCH BOARDS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the CESTAT, holding that CENVAT can be availed in respect of clearances to SEZ Developers even prior to 2008, when specific amendments were made to CENVAT credit rules. In other words, the question for consideration is, whether the said amendments were prospective or retrospective? This Court had an occasion to consider the said question in appeals in CEA Nos.29 & 59/2012 and connected matters decided on 30th July 2014, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. FOSROC Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd., wherein it was held that amendment has to be construed as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(i) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a 'developer' of a Special Economic Zone for their authorised operations. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

(2.) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.