Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd on 28 June, 2016
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. She further submitted that SEZ unit is treated at par with the SEZ Developer and the goods cleared to SEZ Developer are not exempted goods. She further submitted that the goods cleared to SEZ Developer without payment of duty during the period from 14.02.2007 to 30.12.2008 are not exempted goods within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. She further submitted that the goods cleared by the appellant to SEZ Developer is in terms of Section 26(1)(c) of the SEZ Act and not in terms of any notification issued under Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944. She further submitted that the amendment to Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by Notification No. 50/2008 CE dated 31.12.2008 should be given retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 10.09.2004 when the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 came into existence and therefore no reversal of credit irrespective of inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to SEZ Developer is warranted under Rule 6(3)(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. She further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (318) E.L.T. 240 (Kar.)