Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate against Larsen & Toubro Limited (HED) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dispute arose from an order dated 28 August 2019 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, which allowed the respondent's appeal against an order-in-original dated 31 January 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. The core controversy pertained to the applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which deals with the obligation of manufacturers of dutiable and exempted goods and providers of taxable and exempted services. The revenue had raised a duty demand against the respondent under this rule. The substantial question of law framed was whether the amendment to Rule 6, retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010, was applicable in the present case. The court, after considering the submissions, held that the amendment was not retrospective and did not apply to the period prior to its enactment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the CESTAT order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - Retrospective Amendment - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 - The issue was whether the retrospective amendment to Rule 6 by the Finance Act, 2010 applied to the period prior to its enactment. The court held that the amendment was not retrospective and did not apply to the case, as the demand was for a period prior to the amendment. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010, was applicable in the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The CESTAT order is upheld. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative, i.e., the amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010, was not applicable in the present case.
Law Points
- Retrospective amendment
- CENVAT credit
- Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules
- 2004
- Section 73 of Finance Act
- 2010
- substantial question of law
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 64
Central Excise Appeal No. 32 of 2021
G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain
Ms. Asha Desai i/b. Mr. Ram Ochani, for the Appellant; Mr. V. Sridharan with Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Mihir Mehta, Mr. Jas Sanghavi & Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. PDS Legal, for Respondent
The Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate
Larsen & Toubro Limited (HED), Powai, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of CESTAT allowing the respondent's appeal.
Remedy Sought
Revenue sought to set aside the CESTAT order and restore the duty demand.
Filing Reason
Revenue challenged the CESTAT order which held that the retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by Finance Act, 2010 was not applicable.
Previous Decisions
CESTAT allowed the respondent's appeal against the order-in-original dated 31 January 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.
Issues
Whether the amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010, was applicable in the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant/revenue argued that the amendment was retrospective and applicable.
The respondent argued that the amendment was not retrospective and did not apply to the period prior to its enactment.
Ratio Decidendi
The retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2010 does not apply to periods prior to its enactment. The CESTAT correctly held that the amendment was not retrospective.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act,1944 (for short “CE Act”) arises from an order dated 28 August 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, Regional Bench (for short “CESTAT”), whereby the respondent’s appeal being Excise Appeal No.525 of 2012 arising out of the order-in-original dated 31January 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, has been allowed.
The appellant / revenue in assailing the judgment of the CESTAT has although raised four questions of law, as fairly agreed by the parties, we confine the adjudication of the present appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the CSTAT was right in holding that the amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 retrospectively amended by the Finance Act,2010, was applicable in the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act,2010 ?”
Procedural History
The respondent filed Excise Appeal No. 525 of 2012 before CESTAT against the order-in-original dated 31 January 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. CESTAT allowed the appeal on 28 August 2019. The revenue then filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 35G
- Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: Rule 6
- Finance Act, 2010: Section 73
