By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 03, 2017: THE CESTAT had in this case while allowing the appeal partly had held thus -

CX- CENVAT - Denial of CENVAT credit in respect of services provided to SEZ for authorized operations - Rule 6(6A) of CCR, 2004 was not introduced by way of substitution but it was a new sub-Rule inserted in the CCR, 2004 hence there are no grounds to presume that the said insertion is clarificatory in nature - in view of FA, 2012, Eighth Schedule, retrospective effect of said sub-rule is only from 10.02.2006 - no basis for extending benefit for period prior to 10.02.2006 - Appeal partly allowed, consequently penalty and interest reduced: CESTAT [para 6, 7]

While reporting this decision 2017-TIOL-3226-CESTAT-MUM we had pointed out that the dates mentioned ought to be 10.02.2006 and 28.02.2011 respectively in place of 10.02.2008 and 20.02.2011 respectively as mentioned in the order. The headnote mentions the correct date of 10.02.2006 .

Apparently, the appellant noticed the same and has made an application for rectification of mistake in the subject order dated 17.08.2017 to the extent of seeking a correction of the date mentioned in the order as 10.02.2008 . The latter date viz. 20.02.2011 , in any case, did not make any impact to their case, so nothing is claimed in this regard.

Along with the above, the appellant states that the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products - 2011-TIOL-1173-CESTAT-BANG  &  2013-TIOL-1128-HC-AP-ST has not been correctly appreciated in the Tribunal's order.

The Single Member Bench extracted the amendment brought in Rule 6(6)(A) of the CCR by Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2012 and agreed that the date ought to be 10.02.2006.

So, the Bench held -

As regards the second plea of the appellant that the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products had not been considered in proper perspective, the CESTAT observed that the decision was examined in para 5 of the impugned order and moreover in Rectification of Mistake jurisdiction, the said matter cannot be considered by the Tribunal. The said claim was dismissed.

The Rectification of Mistake application was partly allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-4256-CESTAT-MUM)