SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Yogi orders Judicial Probe into Hathras tragedyBengal Governor gripes about protocol lapses during Siliguri visit; writes to State GovtIndia, ADB sign USD170 mn loan to strengthen pandemic preparedness and responseCus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCHealth Ministry issues Advisory to States in view of Zika virus cases from MaharashtraCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCExpert Committee on Climate Finance submits Report on transition finance to IFSCAWIPO data shows Chinese inventors filing highest number of AI patentsGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCManish Sisodia’s judicial custody further extendedGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June month
 
Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules - Anomaly in rectifying an Anomaly

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAR 16, 2012: LIKE every budget, this year's Budget also has some retrospective amendments. One such amendment is proposed to Rule 6(6A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This Rule was inserted in 2011 vide Notification No 3/2011-CE (NT), dated 01/03/2011 and reads as under:

(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.

Now, vide Schedule Eight to the Finance Bill 2012, it is proposed to give retrospective effect to the above Rule with effect from 10.2.2006. Good news indeed.

But what about sub-rule (i) of Rule 6? At present, it reads:

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 to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorized operations; or….

The word “Developer” was inserted in the above Rule only with effect from 31.12.2008 vide Notification No 50/2008 CE(NT). So, for the period prior to 31.12.2008, department is merrily continuing the litigation though the benefit was extended by the Tribunal, armed with a clarification from the Board vide F.No.267/52/2008-CX-8 dated : January 7, 2009 that the said amendment is only prospective in nature.

So, now the position is that while the service providers to the SEZ units or developers got a retrospective amendment, no such amendment is in sight for manufactures, an apparent indication of conflict in policy of babus dealing with GOODS and babus dealing with SERVICES.


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Yet another memory loss

The Tariff notification 6/2006 has been rescinded and its content has been included in the omnibus notification no 12/2012. Yet Rule 6(6)(vii) provides exclusion for the goods cleared under the rescinded notification only. Another amendment is to be expected?

Posted by rajavelcalaimany rajavelcalaimany
 

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST