9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 995 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate / refund of duty on goods supplied to SEZ units - admissibility of refund claim of jute cess paid on goods supplied to SEZ units - period of limitation - in supersession of the earlier claim of refund, subsequently the applicant submitted revised claim of ₹ 13,36,029/- The contention of the department in this regard was that as the- applicant has submitted their initial refund claim on 04.08.2009 hence their refund claim for the period from 01.072008 to 04.08.2008 has become time barred and hence non grantable. - Held that - That jute cess in the instant case was paid under a mistake of law, in as much as Section 7 of the SEZ Act specifically exempts payment of jute cess in respect of goods supplied from DTA to a unit in the SEZ. Government finds that the main issue in the impugned Order-in-Appeal is the admissibility of refund under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 3 of the Jute Cess Act in respect of supplies made thereof. - Hence the instant case does not fall with the purview of ambit and scope of provisions contained for Section 35EE read with proviso to Section 35(B) (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 under which the instant revision application has been made. - Revision Application filed before Central Government in terms of Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act 1944 is beyond jurisdiction - Revision application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim for Jute Cess, Education Cess, and Higher Education Cess. 2. Time-barred refund claims. 3. Applicability of unjust enrichment. 4. Classification of supplies from DTA to SEZ as exports. 5. Jurisdiction of the Revision Application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim for Jute Cess, Education Cess, and Higher Education Cess: The applicant, a manufacturer of jute articles, submitted a refund claim for ?13,47,341/- under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for excisable goods delivered to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The claim was revised to ?13,36,029/-. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund of Jute Cess amounting to ?13,08,097/- and claims for Education Cess and Higher Education Cess for the period from 01.07.2008 to 04.08.2008 but allowed refunds for the period from 05.08.2008 to 18.06.2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the refund claim of Jute Cess and ordered the deposit of ?32,822/- along with interest into the Government account. 2. Time-Barred Refund Claims: The department contended that the initial refund claim submitted on 04.08.2009 was time-barred for the period from 01.07.2008 to 04.08.2008. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this view, rejecting the refund claims for this period as non-grantable. 3. Applicability of Unjust Enrichment: The applicant argued that the Order-in-Appeal introduced the issue of unjust enrichment for the first time, which was not raised in the original proceedings. The applicant maintained that the provisions of unjust enrichment do not apply to export transactions, as supported by the decisions in CST Vs S. Mohanlal and Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd vs CST. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, which the applicant contended was beyond the scope of the original proceedings. 4. Classification of Supplies from DTA to SEZ as Exports: The applicant argued that supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to SEZ qualify as exports under Rule 2 (c) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties, and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Therefore, the provisions of unjust enrichment should not apply. The applicant also contended that the DTA and SEZ units, being owned by the same corporate entity, should not be considered separate legal entities for the purpose of sales tax. 5. Jurisdiction of the Revision Application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Government observed that the main issue was the admissibility of the refund under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 3 of the Jute Cess Act. The case did not fall within the provisions of Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it pertained to rebate on goods exported outside India. Consequently, the Revision Application was dismissed for being non-maintainable, and the applicant was advised to file an appeal before the appropriate authority under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Conclusion: The Revision Application filed under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant was directed to pursue the matter under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the issues of time-barred claims, unjust enrichment, and the classification of DTA to SEZ supplies as exports.
|
