2017 (5) TMI 816 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - supply of goods to SEZ unit - The appellant cleared goods on payment of duty even after the receipt of approval by M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd. as SEZ - denial of refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not followed the prescribed provisions of SEZ Rules which came into force from 10.2.2006 and has not cleared the goods to SEZ Unit of M/s. Infosys Technologies under the cover of Duty Procurement Certificate/ARE-1 - Held that - the appellants have failed to follow the procedure which is prescribed in the SEZ Act for claiming exemption - appellant have also not followed the procedure as prescribed in N/N. 58/2003 which was in force at that point of time - appellants are not entitled to refund of the duty paid as they have not followed the procedure prescribed under law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for duty paid on goods supplied to SEZ unit without following prescribed procedure.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, filed a refund claim for duty paid on goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit without following prescribed procedures. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (A).

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that the rejection of the refund claim was contrary to statutory provisions. They highlighted that the supplies were made to an approved SEZ unit, Infosys Technologies Ltd., and cited relevant rules and circulars supporting their claim for exemption from duty payment.

3. Respondent's Defense: The respondent argued that the appellant did not adhere to the procedures outlined in the SEZ Rules and Notification No.58/2003. They emphasized that the appellant cleared goods on payment of duty without following the required process for SEZ clearances.

4. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to follow the prescribed procedures under the SEZ Act and Notification No.58/2003 for claiming exemption. The Commissioner's findings emphasized that the appellant did not meet the conditions for exemption or rebate of duty, as required for SEZ clearances.

5. Decision: Considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the appellant was not entitled to a refund as they did not comply with the prescribed procedures for SEZ clearances. The Tribunal emphasized that even though Section 11B allows for duty refunds, the absence of exemption notification for SEZ clearances meant the duty paid was rightly chargeable.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant's failure to follow prescribed procedures for SEZ clearances rendered them ineligible for a refund of the duty paid. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory procedures in claiming exemptions or rebates on duty payments for supplies to SEZ units.