9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 649 - HC - CustomsTerminal Excise Duty (TED) refund - SEZ unit - Claim of refund of duty involved in procurement of High Speed Diesel (HSD) - HSD is being used for various operations in SEZ unit (Dahej Special Economic Zone) - Jurisdiction - Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch returned the refund application only on the ground that the factory of the petitioner is not under its jurisdiction. - Thereafter, the petitioner company approached the Development Commissioner of Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ), Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The said authority has passed an order dated 8.2.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner company for refund claim stating that SEZ units are not eligible for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) refund. Held that - the the competent authority, that is, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits and returned the claim on the ground that the unit of the petitioner is not situated within the SEZ, and thus, he is not having jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court with which we are in agreement, such application for refund ought to be considered by the competent authority under the Customs Act alone. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division directed to consider the refund applications filed by the petitioner on its own merits and to pass appropriate orders. - Decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction to consider refund claims under the SEZ Act. 2. Entitlement to refund of excise duty under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. 3. Competency of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs to entertain refund claims. 4. Validity and applicability of Division Bench judgment on refund claims of units within SEZ areas. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner sought to challenge a decision dated 08.02.2013 of the Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ, regarding the rejection of their refund applications. The petitioner contended that the SEZ Act entitles them to a refund of excise duty, emphasizing the absence of a specific mechanism for refund claims under the SEZ Act. Issue 2: The petitioner, a company with operations in a Special Economic Zone, claimed entitlement to a refund of excise duty under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. The refund claim of &8377; 57,39,690/- was initially returned by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the SEZ location of the petitioner's factory. Issue 3: The Court considered the jurisdictional aspect, noting that the Assistant Commissioner had not assessed the petitioner's claim on its merits but had merely returned it based on the factory's SEZ location. The Court, in agreement with a Division Bench judgment, held that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division, was the competent authority to consider the refund claims under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for a proper mechanism under the SEZ laws. Issue 4: The Division Bench judgment dated 20.11.2014 addressed the competency of authorities to entertain and dispose of refund claims for units within SEZ areas. The judgment declared the directives invalid and affirmed the authority of the Commissionerate of Customs under the Customs Act to handle refund claims for SEZ units until a proper mechanism was established under the SEZ laws. In conclusion, the Court set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Development Commissioner, directing the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the refund applications on their merits. The petitioner was instructed to make representations to the competent authority within six weeks, and the applications dated 29.6.2012 were deemed the initial filing date for the refund claims. The Court emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner should independently assess the refund claims to determine the petitioner's entitlement, in accordance with the Division Bench judgment and the provisions of the Customs Act.
|
