The applicability of Rule 6(6A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is recognized as retrospective.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Amal Dave for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent.

2 It was submitted that the Central Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 10042 of 2024 is under challenge. It was submitted that the Tribunal passed an Ex-parte order in Excise Appeal No.10992 of 2013 ignoring the facts that the notice was not served due to change of address of the petitioner.

2.1 It was submitted that Ex-parte order passed on merits also suffers from various mistakes apparent on record. It was pointed by learned advocate Mr.Dave that the Order-in-Appeal was passed by the single member, who has deferred with the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metals , wherein, it was held by the Division Bench of the Tribunal that benefit of Rule 6(6A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 , would be applicable retrospectively.

2.2 Learned advocate Mr.Dave further pointed out that the Tribunal has also committed mistake apparent on record in observing that the decision of M/s. Sujana Metals reported in 2011 (273) ELT 112 [Tri-Bangalore), was contradicted in case of Surya Roshni Ltd. , but the Tribunal has not referred to even the citation of the said decision.

2.3 Learned advocate Mr.Dave invited the attention of the Court to the order of Surya Roshni Limited by CESTAT, New Delhi., wherein, the decision of Sujana Metal is considered and applied to hold that the amendment in Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 , would be applicable retrospectively during the period prior to 31.12.2008, the date on which the amendment has come into effect by Notification No.50 of 2008.

2.4 Learned advocate Mr.Dave also referred to and relief upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:

(1) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Pride Foramer., reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T.381 (Bom.)

(2) Commissioner of CUS, Bangalore vs.

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Ltd., reported in

2013 (295) E.L.T 680 (Kar.)

(3) Commissioner vs. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. , reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T.

A149 (S.C.)

(4) Messrs NJ Devani Builders Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India., reported in 2020(11) TMI

798-Gujarat High Court.

(5) Gammon India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai ., reported in 2011 (269)

E.L.T 289 (S.C).

(6) Fujifilm India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Import) NHAVA SHEVA., reported in

2017(349) E.L.T 203 (S.C)

(7) Fairdeal Supplies Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs., reported 2017 (351) E.L.T. 220 (Guj).

(8) Ram Kirpal vs. Union of India., reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 8 (Guj.)

(9) J.K.Synthetics vs. Collector., reported in

1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C).

(10) Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.)

(11) Sujana Metal Products Ltd vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad., reported in 2011 (9) TMI 724- CESTAT, Bangalore.

(12) Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak., reported in 2013 (1)

TMI 500- CESTAT, New Delhi.

(13) Commissioner vs. Sujana Metal Products Ltd., reported in 2016 (342) E.L.T.

A115 (A.P)

(14) Commissioner Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., reported in 2014(6) TMI 902 – Andhra Pradesh High Court.

(15) Union of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T.166 (Chhattisgarh).

(16) Commissioner of Cen.Excise vs. DEE Development Engineers Pvt Ltd., reported in

2016 (339) E.L.T. 560 (P&H).

(17) Commissioner vs. India Cements Ltd., reported in 2018 (9) TMI 2000 – Telangana &

Andhra Pradesh High Court.

(18) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, vs. ECIE Impact Pvt Ltd., reported in 2018 (8) TMI 891- Karnataka High Court.

(19) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, vs. M/s. Lotus Power Gears (P) Ltd., reported in 2016 (6) TMI 998-

Karnataka High Court.

(20) Commissioner of Central Excise & St, Bhavnagar vs. Ultratech Cement