2017 (9) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - claim submitted by the buyer / purchase of goods and not by the manufacturer - developer/co-developer of SEZ - jurisdiction - Held that - an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in the assessee-Appellants own case M/s Adani Power Limited vs CCE, Bhubaneswar 2017 (7) TMI 891 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that the appellant, who had paid the Excise duty to the manufactuer, had the locus-standi, to file the application claiming the refund of duty - matter remanded to the jurisdictional authority to examine the claim and pass the order along with the earlier order, which is still pending, but by providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee-Appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of Central Excise duty paid on coal procured for SEZ.
2. Jurisdiction of Central Excise officers over SEZ claims.

Analysis:
1. Refund of Central Excise duty: The Tribunal considered the claim for refund of Central Excise duty paid on coal procured for SEZ. The appellant argued that they are entitled to the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as they suffered the duty paid by the supplier. The Tribunal cited precedents where buyers were allowed to claim refunds even if they were not the manufacturers who paid the duty. It was established that the appellants had the locus standi to file for the refund if the duty was not payable or paid in excess as per the law.

2. Jurisdiction over SEZ claims: The issue of jurisdiction arose as the lower authorities rejected the claim citing the SEZ Act, stating that the appellant, being in an SEZ, was outside the territory of India, and the Central Excise officers lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to cases where similar jurisdictional issues were addressed by the Gujarat High Court. It was noted that the Ministry of Commerce issued a Notification specifying that Central Excise officers have jurisdiction over SEZ operations under relevant laws. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the original authority to re-examine the claim on merit, emphasizing the jurisdiction of Central Excise officers to deal with such claims.

3. Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the jurisdictional authority for re-examination of the claim and passing a fresh order. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit additional evidence if required. The jurisdictional officer was directed to examine the claims and issue an order within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order. The decision was made in line with previous judgments and the legal provisions governing Central Excise duty refunds and SEZ jurisdiction.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of refund claims and jurisdictional matters addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions rendered in the case.