9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRejection of rebate claim - As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Board s Circular No. 29/2006-Customs, dated 27-12-2006, in case where export entitlement are to be availed, the movement of goods from the place of manufacture to the SEZ shall be on the basis of ARE-1 and bill of export - Applicant has not filed bill of export - Held that - Benefit of rebate can be allowed to supplies made to SEZ unit/Developer/Co- developer/contractor/sub-contractor. In the instant case, the applicants claimed to have supplied goods to two entitles i.e. M/s. DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd., and M/s. Moser Baer Photo Voltaic Ltd., Greater Noida. The applicant in their grounds of revision application has claimed that in the instant case, the supplies were to DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd. for contract with DLF Limited, SEZ Developer vide letter of Approval No. F2/137/05-EPZ, dated 6-12-2006, DLF City, Gurgaon. Under such circumstances supplies made to M/s. DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd., a contractor will be eligible for benefit of rebate claim. Government further notes that original authority did not discuss this issue in either show cause notices or in Order-in-Original. However, the applicant has elaborated the factual issue in respect of said supplies to both the parties in SEZ. Government is of opinion that the original authority may verify this aspect and if the supply in these cases is found to be in terms of provision of Rule 10 of SEZ Rules then, claim rebate may be sanctioned - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Compliance with Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Rules, 2006 and Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Customs. 3. Requirement of Bills of Export for rebate claims. 4. Substantial compliance versus procedural lapse. 5. Applicability of previous judgments and orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Rebate Claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002: The applicant, engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Alloy Extruded products, filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for supplies made to SEZ units. The original authority rejected these claims on the grounds of non-compliance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006, and Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Customs, due to the absence of Bills of Export. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the applicant contested this, arguing that the supplies were made to contractors for SEZ developers, which should qualify for the rebate. 2. Compliance with SEZ Rules, 2006 and Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Customs: The applicant argued that the supplies were made to contractors for SEZ developers, which should be eligible for exemptions, drawbacks, and concessions as per Rule 10 of the SEZ Rules, 2006. They provided documents bearing the names of both the developer and the contractor, asserting substantial proof of exports. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address this claim adequately. 3. Requirement of Bills of Export for Rebate Claims: The applicant contended that since the exports were not made against any export entitlements like Drawback or DEPB Scheme, they were not required to submit Bills of Export as per Circular No. 29/2006-Cus. The government observed that while the Bill of Export is generally required, the substantial benefit of the rebate claim cannot be denied solely for this procedural lapse, especially when the goods were duly received by the SEZ unit, as endorsed by the Customs Officer. 4. Substantial Compliance versus Procedural Lapse: The applicant argued that the failure to file a Shipping Bill was a procedural lapse and should not result in the denial of substantive rights. They cited case laws supporting the notion that procedural non-compliance should not negate substantial compliance with the law. The government agreed, noting that the duty-paid nature of the goods and their supply to the SEZ was not in dispute. 5. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Orders: The applicant referred to a previous Order-in-Appeal in a similar case, which was in their favor but not followed by the Assistant Commissioner. The government noted that this order had not been stayed or overruled by a higher authority and should have been considered. The applicant also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Co., Ltd., emphasizing the need for consistency in following judicial precedents. Conclusion: The government set aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and remanded the case back to the original authority for a fresh decision, considering the above observations. The original authority was instructed to verify whether the supplies were made in terms of Rule 10 of SEZ Rules, 2006, and if so, to sanction the rebate claims. The applicants were to be given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The Revision Applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
