[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE)

Notification No. 01/2016-Central Excise (N.T.)

 New Delhi, the Dated: 1st February, 2016

G.S.R. 132(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the CENVAT Credit (First Amendment) Rules, 2016.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of March, 2015.

2. In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 3, in sub-rule (1), in clause (vii), the proviso shall be omitted;

[F. No. 6/14/2014-CX.I (Pt.)]

(Santosh Kumar Mishra)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

Note – The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 600(E) dated the 10th September, 2004 {Notification No. 23/2004 Central Excise (N.T) dated the 10th September, 2004} and was last amended vide number G.S.R. 1028(E), dated the 31st December, 2015 {Notification No. 27/2015 -Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 31st December, 2015}.

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (3860)
  • Manish Nim

    Effective date is mis-typed as 1st Mar-2015 instead of 1st Mar-16, needs amendment in the notification.

  • viji

    it would be easier to understand if all notification contain one line at the end “effect of amendment” which explains the meaning / crux / impact of the amendment. This is followed in all DGFT notifications. will be helpful if cbec also follows the same pattern.

  • N.K.Bajpai

    Some years ago,when I was serving in the customs & Central excise department,Shri M.G.Abrol, then Member ( Customs) had directed that the gist of an amending notification would be stated in the form of a footnote which, though not part of the statutory notification,would serve the purpose of explaining the rationale for the public.Apparently, either this practice has been discontinued or there is an omission in the present case.