AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This tax appeal u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act) is against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the Tribunal), dated March 6, 2012 allowing the appeal of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (the assessee) holding that the substitution of sub-rule (6)(i) in rule 6 (rule 6(6)(i)) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the 2004 Rules) has retrospective effect and is applicable from the date of framing of the Rules. The main question involved in this appeal is:
Whether the benefit provided by the substituted rule 6(6)(i) in the 2004 Rules can be availed of on a date prior to its substitution in the 2004 Rules or in other words, whether the substituted rule 6(6)(i) is retrospective or not?
Facts
Rule 6 of the 2004 Rules (See endnote 56 on page 42) imposes different obligations on a manufacturer of exempted and dutiable goods:
� Under sub-rule (2) of rule 6 (rule 6(2)) of the 2004 Rules such a manufacturer is required to maintain separate accounts for the receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input service meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods.
� Under sub-rule (3) of rule 6 (rule 6(3)) of the 2004 Rules, it may not do so, but in that event, the manufacturer is required to pay certain amount of total price of the exempted goods.
� Sub-rule (6) of rule 6 (rule 6(6)) of the 2004 Rules exempts the operation of rules 6(1) to 6(4) of the 2004 Rules in certain contingencies.
Initially when the 2004 Rules were framed, rule 6(6)(i) exempted the operation of rules 6(1) to 6(4) to the goods cleared to the units in the special economic zone (SEZ) established under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (the SEZ Act).
Later on, rule 6(6)(i) was amended and new rule 6(6)(i) was substituted by the Cenvat Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2008 the amending Rules (See endnote 57 on page 44). By the substituted rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules not only clearance to a unit but clearance to a developer was also exempted from operation of rules 6(1) to 6(4) of the 2004 Rules.
The SEZs are being developed with the private enterprises at different parts of the country. One SEZ is at Kochi. M/s. Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone, Mundra and M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited are its co-developers. One another SEZ is at Coimbatore Tidel Park and M/s. Billimoria and Company Limited are its co-developers.
The assessee is engaged in manufacture of various iron and steel products falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (the Excise Tariff Act). It manufactures dutiable goods as well as exempted goods and supplied them to the co-developers of SEZs at Kochi and Coimbatore from October, 2008 to December, 2008. However, it neither maintained separate accounts as mandated under rule 6(2) nor did it pay ten per cent. of the value of the exempted goods under rule 6(3)(b) of the 2004 Rules.
The adjudicating officer issued two show-cause notices dated November 19, 2009 and December 2, 2009 to show cause as to why ten per cent. of the total value of the exempted goods be not recovered from them under rule 6(3)(b) of the 2004 Rules along with interest and penalty on the same.
The assessee filed its objection against the same claiming that it had supplied the goods to the developers of the SEZ at Kochi and Coimbatore and under newly substituted rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules, it was exempt from the operation of rules 6(1) to 6(4) of the 2004 Rules.
The adjudicating officer by his order June 7, 2011 rejected the objection of the assessee holding that:
� At the relevant time, clearance of goods to the developers of SEZ was not covered by rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules.
� The substituted rule 6(6)(i) was prospective.
� The assessee cannot take benefit of the same.
On the aforesaid finding, the adjudicating officer confirmed the demand of Rs. 72,28,050 and imposed interest on the same as well as penalty of the same amount.
The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It was allowed on March 6, 2012 holding that substituted rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules was retrospective. Hence, the present appeal by the Central Excise Department (the Department).
Questions involved
We have heard counsel for the parties. This case was admitted on October 30, 2012 on the following questions of law:
(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the amendment Notification No. 50/2008 dated December 31, 2008 as retrospective, when admittedly the said notification provides that they shall come into force on their publication in the Official Gazette?
(ii) Whether the supplies made to SEZ developers prior to December 31, 2008 can also be treated as exempted goods for the purpose of rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and can further be treated as exports u/s 2(18) of the Customs Act as well as under Clause (V) of rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
However, the main point involved is, as mentioned in the second paragraph of the judgment.
Decision
The counsel for the Department submits that:
� At the relevant time, rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules did not include clearance to a developer in the SEZ. It was included by the amending Rules.
� Under sub-rule (2) of rule 1 (rule 1(2)) of the amending Rules, it came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
� The amending Rules were published in the Official Gazette on December 31, 2008. They were not in force during the time when the goods were cleared to the developers in the SEZ.
� The assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of the same.
Whereas, the counsel for the assessee submits that:
� Excise duty is not levied or is remitted on the goods that are exported.
� The goods cleared to the units and developers of the SEZ are treated to be export under the law.
� The units and developers are on the same footing and are in the same class. The 2004 Rules as initially framed had not provided same treatment to them and were discriminatory as well as violative of article 14 of the constitution.
� The amending Rules have given same treatment to the units as well as to developers and have put them in the same class. Now, discrimination has been removed.
� The amending Rules are clarificatory and its benefit is available from the date the 2004 Rules were framed.
In order to appreciate the submissions of the parties, it is necessary to consider the nature and historical background of excise duty.
Difference between tax and duty
The essential characteristics of a tax as distinguished from other forms of imposition is that a "tax" is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not for services rendered. It is without any reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax (see below for citations) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt., , Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and Others, Pratibha Processors and others Vs. Union of India and others, .
The concept of tax can be best illustrated with the answer of justice Holmes to his secretary. Justice Holmes was fond of upholding taxing statutes. Once his secretary asked him the reason for the same. He answered that he liked to pay his taxes because he brought his civilisation with them. Taxes help the nation to build infrastructure and are necessary.
Black''s law dictionary explains taxes and duties as follows:
� Tax is a monetary charge imposed by the Government on persons, entities, transactions, or property to yield public revenue. Most broadly, the term embraces all governmental impositions on the person, property, privileges, occupations, and enjoyment of the people, and includes duties, imposts, and excises. Although a tax is often thought of as being pecuniary in nature, it is not necessarily payable in money.
� Duty is a tax imposed on a commodity or transaction, esp. on imports. A duty in this sense is imposed on things and not persons.
Thus, tax--imposed upon commodities, goods, financial transactions in contradistinction upon the individuals--is generally referred to as "duty"; whereas, tax is levied also on the taxpayers, who could be individuals or legal entities. Duty and tax have same connotation, same purpose, though duty is sub-specie of the tax.
Nature of excise and customs duties
Different kind of duties are imposed upon goods. Traditionally, two duties were imposed: one is customs and the other is excise. Though, of late, other kinds of duties, such as countervailing duty (CVD), education cess, anti-dumping duty, safeguard duty, etc., are also being imposed.
The word "excise" is said to be ambiguous. In Atlantix Smoke Shops Ltd. v. Colon and AG for Canada [1943] AC 550, the Privy Council observed:
Excise'' is a word of vague and somewhat ambiguous meaning. The word is usually (though by no means always) employed to indicate a duty imposed on home manufactured articles in the course of manufacture before they reach the consumer. So regarded, an excise duty is plainly indirect. A further difficulty in the way of the precise application of the word is that many miscellaneous taxes, at any rate in this country, are classed as ''excise'' merely because they are for convenience collected through the machinery of the Board of Excise--the tax on owning a dog, for example.
Nonetheless, it is explained by other Commentators and decisions as duty on manufacture of goods to be consumed within the country (emphasis supplied by us):
� Sephen in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1928) edition, Vol. IV, page 420 following Blackstone, says "Excise duties are those duties which are imposed by Parliament upon commodities produced and consumed in this country".
� In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 31 Sct 342, 220 US 107, Am Ann Cas 1912B, 1312, 55 Led 389, the US Supreme court observed ''"Excises'' are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities, within the country, upon licenses to pursue occupations and upon corporate privileges".
� Halsbury laws of England 4th edition reissue volume 12(2), paragraph 1 explains it by saying "historically, duties of customs, or customs duties, in the strict sense are pecuniary charges or tolls imposed by the State and payable upon goods exported from or imported into the country; and they may be contrasted with excise duties, which are payable on goods produced and consumed within the country.
Thus, excise duty is a duty imposed on the manufacture of the goods to be used within the country. Whereas, the customs duty is duty on the goods manufactured in the other countries and brought within a country to be used or taken out of the country to be used in the other countries.
We can say that they are a kind of sister duties. The statute imposing excise and customs duty in our country, namely, the Excise Act and the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) also follow the same pattern as mentioned above.
Provisions of the Excise Act and the 2002 Rule
Section 3 of the Excise Act is the charging section and is titled "Duties specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to be levied". It provides charging of the duty on the manufacture of the products as specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The Central Excise Rules, 2002 (the 2002 Rules) provides how excise duty is to be assessed and collected:
� Rule 4 is titled "duty payable on removal". It provides excise duty to be payable on removal of goods.
� Rules 6 and 7 are titled "assessment of duty" and "provisional assessment". They provide as to how the assessment of the excise duty is required to be done.
� Rules 17, 18 and 19 are titled "removal of goods by a hundred percent export-oriented undertaking for domestic tariff area", "rebate of duty", and "export without payment of duty" respectively. These three rules together conceive an arrangement by which if the goods are to be exported, then no customs duty is charged or remitted back to them on proof of export and in case 100 per cent. export oriented undertaking removes the goods to the domestic tariff area instead of export then it is liable to pay excise duty.
Provisions of the Customs Act
Section 2 of the Customs Act is titled as "definitions". Sub-section (11) of section 2 (section 2(11)) explains what is "customs area". Sub-section (18) of section 2 (section 2(18)) explains what is "export". Sub-section (23) of section 2 (section 2(23)) explains what is "import". Sub-section (27) of section 2 (section 2(27)) explains what is "India".
Section 12 of the Customs Act is titled "dutiable goods" and is a charging section under the Customs Act. It provides for customs duty to be paid on the export as well as on the import of the goods as specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the Customs-Tariff Act).
The principle envisaged in the Excise Act and the 2002 Rules as well as the Customs Act is the same as traditionally how the excise and customs duties were understood. It is clear from their provisions that excise duty is payable on the manufacture of the goods but is to be paid only in respect of those goods that are to be consumed within the country, and not that are to be exported. In case, the goods are to be exported then, customs duty--if it is leviable under the Customs Act read with the Customs Tariff Act--is to be imposed.
With the aforesaid framework in the background, let us understand the purpose of the SEZ Act, clearance to units and developers in SEZ, and purpose of the newly substituted rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules.
Purpose of SEZ and clearance of goods to SEZ is export
The Government of India introduced a policy on April 1, 2000 for setting up of the special economic zones (SEZ), with a view to provide an internationally competitive and hassle free environment for exports. The units could be set up in the SEZ for manufacture of goods and rendering services. They were to be net foreign exchange earner and were not to be subjected to any pre-determined, value addition or minimum export performance requirements.
Initially, in order to implement the aforesaid policy, the Customs Act was amended and Chapter XA with sections 76A to 76H was inserted. Subsequently, the SEZ Act was enacted and Chapter XA of the Customs Act was deleted.
Section 2 of the SEZ Act is titled "definitions". It provides as follows:
� Sub-section (g) of section 2 (section 2(g)) of the SEZ Act defines "developer". It means a person or a State, which is granted a letter of approval under sub-section (10) of section 3 (section 3(10)) of the SEZ Act by the Central Government and includes an authority and a co-developer.
� Sub-section (m) of section 2 (section 2(m)) defines the word "export". It means supplying goods, or providing services, from the domestic tariff area to a unit or developer.
� Sub-section (zc) of section 2 (section 2(zc)) defines the words "existing unit" and "unit". It means, a unit which has been set up by an entrepreneur in a SEZ and includes an existing unit.
Section 51 of the SEZ Act is titled "Act to have overriding effect". It provides that the SEZ Act will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any other instrument. It has overriding effects over any other law and in case of conflict, the SEZ Act is to prevail.
The SEZ Act is within the territorial limits of the country; the goods supplied to the unit or to the developer in SEZ do not go outside the country, yet, in view of the definition in section 2(m) of the SEZ Act, they are to be treated as export.
In the present case, the assessee had supplied goods from the domestic tariff area to a developer and it is to be treated as an export in view of section 2(m) of the SEZ Act. In case it is treated to be export then all benefits as given to export under any other law should be given.
In case, the general principle as well as the framework of the Customs Act or Excise Act is to be understood, in that event, there should not be any excise duty on anything which is supplied to a unit or developer. The principle that is applicable to the unit in the SEZ should also apply to a developer as well.
The SEZ Act treats the unit as well as the developer on the same footing. The obligations arising under the Excise Act or the 2002 Rules or the 2004 Rules for a unit in SEZ should be the same for a developer of SEZ; they should have same liabilities, same benefits. However, this was not so: there was some distinction in the 2004 Rules as they were initially framed.
The assessee is a manufacturer of the goods that are taxable under the Excise Tariff Act. Rule 6 of the 2004 Rules (See endnote 56 on page 42) is titled-"obligation of a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services". It provides certain obligation on the manufacturer of such goods. The assessee is one such manufacturer. It not only manufactures dutiable goods but exempted goods as well.
Rule 6(2) read with rule 6(3) of the 2004 Rules provide that separate accounts for dutiable goods be maintained or in the alternative ten per cent. (this is the percentage under rule 6(3)(b) of the 2004 Rules for the nature of goods manufactured by the assessee) of the price of exempted goods be deposited. Admittedly, the assessee has neither kept separate accounts for the dutiable goods as mandated under rule 6(2) of the 2004 Rules nor it has deposited ten per cent. as mentioned in rule 6(3) of the 2004 Rules.
Initially, rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules (See endnote 56 on page 42) was as follows:
Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services.--
(6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either--
(i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zone;...
Initially, rule 6(6)(i) provided that the provisions of rules 6(1) to 6(4) of the 2004 Rules will not be applicable in case the excisable products are removed without payment of duty and cleared to a unit in a SEZ.
The relevant point to note is that the 2004 Rules as initially envisaged provided benefit to the goods cleared to a unit in SEZ only and not to the developer though under the SEZ Act the position of the developer as well as the unit was one and the same; they were in the same class, entitled to the same treatment. This appears to be an inadvertent omission.
It appears that the aforesaid mistake was realised by the Government and rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules was substituted by the following new sub-rule (See endnote 57 on page 44):
(i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zone or to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorised operations.
After substitution of rule 6(6)(i) by the amended Rules, the discrimination between the developer and a unit in SEZ has been obliterated. Both stand in the same footing. It is now in consonance with article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Nevertheless, in case the submission of the Department--that the amended substituted sub-rule-came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, i.e., on December 31, 2008--is accepted, then the discrimination would be there prior to December 31, 2008 though after this date it would not be there.
The Central Government is a state within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution. It is prohibited to discriminate under article 14 of the Constitution. In case the submission of the Department is accepted, it would leave the Central Government to the charge of discrimination. Could this be the intention; can this be presumed; should this be the result?
In our opinion the emphatic answer to the aforesaid question is--No.
It is clear from the nature of the excise duty as it has been traditionally understood to be duty only on the manufacture of those goods that are to be consumed within the country and not on the goods to be exported. This is also the framework of the Excise Act. As the supply of the goods to a developer of SEZ is treated to be export, there appears to be no reason why this benefit was not there, except that it was due to a mistake or inadvertence that the word developer was not initially included in rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules and the developers and units were not given the same treatment.
It is settled rule of interpretation that the rule or notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. However, Justice G.P. Singh in his book "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" 12th Edition, 2010 at page 1021 observes:
A rule, which is not in terms retrospective, may have retrospective operation because of the retrospective operation of the enactment in respect of which it is made.
So is the case here. The substituted rule 6(6)(i) of the 2004 Rules should have retrospectivity in order not to discriminate and to be in consonance with the nature of excise duty.
In our opinion, the rule is clarificatory, corrects an obvious mistake, removes discrimination, and provides correct legal principle. Its prospective enforcement would leave it to be suspect at the touchstone of article 14 of the Constitution. Considering this aspect it is proper to hold that the substituted rule 6(6)(i) came into force from the date the 2004 Rules were enforced.
Conclusions
Our conclusions are as follows:
(a) The excise duty is imposed on the manufacture of the product that is to be consumed in the country; whereas a customs duty is imposed on the product that is manufactured within the country but is to be used outside the country, i.e., exported as well as manufactured outside the country and brought into the country for use, i.e., imported;
(b) The amended rule is merely clarificatory, corrects an obvious mistake, removes discrimination between developers and units in special economic zones. It merely clarifies or explains the existing law of providing non-imposition of excise duty on goods that are held to be export under the Special Economic Zones Act;
(c) The substituted rule 6(6)(i) is enforced from the date the 2004 Rules came into force.
In view of the above, both the substantial questions of law are decided against the Department. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
Headlines
Substitution in 6(6)(i) Cenvat Rules is enforced from date of its enforcement.
Endnotes:
Rule 6 of the 2004 Rules as it was initially framed was as follows:
Obligation of manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services.--(1) The Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2).
Provided that the Cenvat credit on inputs shall not be denied to job worker referred to in rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the said inputs are used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule.
(2) Where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs or input services, and manufactures such final products or provides such output service which are chargeable to duty or tax as well as exempted goods or services, then, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input service meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or in providing output service and the quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods or services and take Cenvat credit only on that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods or in providing output service on which service tax is payable.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules(1) and (2), the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following options, as applicable to him, namely:--
(a) It the exempted goods are--
(i) goods falling within heading No. 22.04 of the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the said First Schedule);
(ii) Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) falling within Chapter 27 of the said First Schedule used in the generation of electricity;
(iii) Naphtha (RN) falling within Chapter 27 of the said First Schedule used in the manufacture of fertilizer;
(iv) Naptha (RN) and furnace oil falling within Chapter 27 of the said First Schedule used for generation of electricity;
(v) newsprint, in rolls or sheets, falling within heading No. 48.01 of the said First Schedule;
(vi) final products falling within Chapters 50 to 63 of the said First Schedule;
(vii) goods supplied to defence personnel or for defence projects or to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes, under any of the following notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), namely:--
(1) No. 70/92-Central Excise, dated 17th June, 1992, G.S.R. 505(E), dated 17th June, 1992;
(2) No. 62/95-Central Excise, dated 16th March, 1995, G.S.R. 254(E), dated 16th March, 1995.
(3) No. 63/95-Central Excise, dated 16th March, 1995, G.S.R. 255(E), dated 16th March 1995;
(4) No. 64/95-Central Excise, dated 16th March, 1995, G.S.R. 256 (E), dated 16th March, 1995,
(viii) Liquefied Petroleum Cases (LPG) falling under tariff items 2711 12 00, 2711 13 00 and 2711 19 00 of the said First Schedule;
(ix) Kerosene falling within heading 2710 of the said First Schedule, for ultimate sale through public distribution system. The manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of such final products at the time for their clearance from the factory;
(b) if the exempted goods are other than those described in condition the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to ten per cent. of the total price, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, paid on such goods, of the exempted final product charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory;
(c) the provider of output service shall utilise credit only to extent of an amount not exceeding twenty per cent. of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service.
Explanation I.--The amount mentioned in conditions (a) and (b) shall be paid by the manufacturer or provider of output service by debiting the Cenvat credit or otherwise.
Explanation II.--If the manufacturer or provider of output service fails to pay the said amount, it shall be recovered along with interest in the same manner, as provided in rule 14, for recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly taken.
Explanation III.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the credit shall not be allowed on inputs and input services used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted services.
(4) No Cenvat credit shall be allowed on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing exempted services, other than the final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) credit of the whole of service tax paid on taxable service as specified in sub clauses (g), (p), (q), (r), (v), (w), (za), (zm), (zp), (zy), (zzd), (zzg), (zzh), (zzl), (zzk), (zzq) and (zzr) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act shall be allowed unless such service is used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacturer of exempted goods or providing exempted services.
(6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either--
(i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zone; or
(ii) cleared to a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking; or
(iii) cleared to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park or Software Technology Park; or
(iv) supplied to the United Nations or an international organization, for their official use or supplied to projects funded by them, on which exemption of duty is available under notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue) No. 108/95-Central Excise, dated 28th August, 1995, number G.S.R. 602(E), dated 28th August, 1995; or
(v) cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; or
(vi) gold or silver falling within Chapter 71 of the said First Schedule, arising in the course of manufacture of copper or zinc by smelting; or
(vii) all goods which are exempt from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable u/s 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and supplied against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2002 Central Excise, dated 1st March, 2002.
The Amending Rules are as follows:
Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 50/2008 Central Excise (N.T.)
New Delhi the 31st December, 2008
G.S.R. (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) 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.
In the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 6 in sub-rule(6), for clause (i), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:--
(i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zone or to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorised operations; or