2014 (10) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Refund of export duty with interest - jurisdiction and/or authority to adjudicate the refund application with respect to units situated in SEZ - Held that - we granted sufficient time to the Union of India to clarify the position and inform the Court who will be the appropriate authority to decide the refund application, as there cannot be vacuum and the applications for refund cannot be kept pending for unreasonable period. Under the circumstances and so long as the order passed by this Court in 2014 (9) TMI 615 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT stands, we dispose of the present Special Civil Application by directing the authority mentioned in the communication dated 1-11-2012 to adjudicate, decide and dispose of the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits at the earliest However, it is clarified that in case order passed by this Court in 2014 (9) TMI 615 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT is reviewed and/or modified and/or the Union of India comes with a case that any appropriate authority other than the authority mentioned in the communication dated 1-11-2012 is the authority and/or empowered to decide the refund application, an appropriate review application may be submitted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of export duty collected by respondents.
2. Jurisdiction to adjudicate refund application for units in SEZ.
3. Authority to decide refund application.
4. Disposal of refund claims by SEZ entities.
5. Review and modification of court orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ for the refund of export duty collected by the respondents, claiming it was illegal based on a previous court decision. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting chemicals from a unit in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) since 2003, alleged that their refund application had not been adjudicated upon despite submission. The court directed the appropriate authority to decide the refund application based on a communication from the Directorate General of Export Promotion.

2. The Assistant Solicitor General argued that the authority mentioned in the communication lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate refund applications for units in SEZ until the SEZ Act was amended. The court granted time to clarify the authority responsible for deciding refund applications for SEZ units. Despite opportunities, the Union of India did not provide clarity on the appropriate authority, leading the court to rely on the communication from the Directorate General of Export Promotion for guidance.

3. The communication highlighted issues with refund claims related to excess Customs Duty paid by SEZ entities and the lack of provisions in SEZ laws to handle such claims. It suggested returning refund applications to concerned parties for resolution through the Department of Commerce. The court directed the authority mentioned in the communication to adjudicate, decide, and dispose of the petitioner's refund application in accordance with the law and on merits at the earliest.

4. The court emphasized that if the order passed in a previous application was reviewed, modified, or if the Union of India identified a different authority to decide refund applications, a review application could be submitted. The Special Civil Application was disposed of with the direction for the mentioned authority to handle the petitioner's refund application promptly.

5. The judgment concluded by permitting direct service and disposing of the present Special Civil Application, highlighting the importance of timely resolution of refund claims and the need for clarity on the authority responsible for adjudicating such applications.