2017 (5) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Clause (b) of provisio to Section 35 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rebate claim - Held that - the present issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sai Wardha Power Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Nagpur 2016 (1) TMI 17 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that in respect of rebate on goods supplied from DTA to SEZ within India, the appeals would not lie to the Appellate Tribunal under clause (b) of proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act - appeal dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the sanction of rebate of duty by the Adjudicating Authority.
- Maintainability of appeal under Clause (b) of proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Rebate of Duty: The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the sanction of rebate of duty by the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal proceeded to address the issues raised.

2. Maintainability of Appeal: The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Clause (b) of proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Larger Bench in the case of Sai Wardha Power Ltd. vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Nagpur, which clarified the statutory provisions concerning the grant of rebate in the context of supplies to Special Economic Zones (SEZ) from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) units.

3. Larger Bench Decision: The Tribunal highlighted the Larger Bench's ruling that rebate on goods supplied from DTA to SEZ within India does not fall under the purview of appeals to the Appellate Tribunal as per Clause (b) of proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act. The decision emphasized the absence of conflict between the SEZ Act and the Central Excise Act regarding the treatment of goods moving from DTA to SEZ as exports under the SEZ Act, which does not levy export duty on such movements.

4. Dismissal of Appeal: Based on the analysis and interpretation of the statutory provisions and the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and subsequently dismissed it. The decision was made in line with the understanding that the provisions of the SEZ Act and the Central Excise Act did not conflict in the context of granting rebates on goods supplied from DTA to SEZ within India.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the scope of appeals concerning rebates on goods supplied to SEZ from DTA units within India, emphasizing the statutory provisions and the absence of conflict between the SEZ Act and the Central Excise Act in this regard.