2010 (8) TMI 916 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) over SEZ Sachin, proper officer for duty drawback claim.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the duty drawback claim of M/s. Bhalaria Metal Craft Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to decide on matters concerning SEZ Sachin. The appellant argued that SEZ Sachin falls within the jurisdiction of Surat and hence did not need separate mention. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was not previously disputed, and therefore, his views on jurisdiction were not available.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the proper officer to deal with the drawback claim is the Deputy Commissioner (Customs) having jurisdiction over the unit in SEZ Sachin. The Commissioner set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for a decision on merit. The Revenue challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), arguing that he did not have the authority to pass orders concerning SEZ Sachin. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for further consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-decide the jurisdiction issue, taking into account relevant provisions of law and a specific Board's Circular. The Circular stated that in case of a disclaimer by the SEZ unit, the claim of the DTA unit should be examined by the Commissionerate of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the DTA unit. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Circular would not be binding if the appellate authority, based on the relevant legal provisions, determined otherwise. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of in the aforementioned terms.