2019 (5) TMI 1337 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty paid - Jurisdiction - refund application was rejected observing that the same ought to have been filed before the Central Excise authorities having jurisdiction over the SEZ Unit in Gujarat whereas the refund was filed before the Central Excise, Trichy Division - HELD THAT - The rejection of claim is only on technical ground for lack of jurisdiction. The learned Authorised Representative has pointed out that the original authority had issued intimation to the appellant within 20 days stating that lack of jurisdiction. The appellant, however, opted to contest the issue of jurisdiction. As per Rule 47 of SEZ Rules read with section 51 of the Act ibid, the refund ought to have been filed before the Central Excise authorities having jurisdiction over the SEZ Unit - the refund has been filed before the wrong authority and the rejection on this ground of lack of jurisdiction does not call for interference. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional authority for filing refund claim in Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
2. Interpretation of Rule 47 of SEZ Rules with respect to refund claims.
3. Procedural lapse in filing refund claim before the appropriate authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a co-developer of an SEZ in Gujarat, filed a refund claim for excise duty paid on inputs procured from suppliers within the Trichy Commissionerate jurisdiction. The claim was rejected as it should have been filed before the Central Excise authorities having jurisdiction over the SEZ Unit in Gujarat. The appellant contended that the refund application was filed where the excise duty was paid, relying on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. However, the amendment in Rule 47 of SEZ Rules mandates filing refund claims before the jurisdictional Central Excise officer of the SEZ Unit, which in this case was in Gujarat.

2. The appellant argued that the original authority could have forwarded the refund claim to the proper authority, and the rejection based on jurisdictional grounds should not affect their substantive right. The learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the refund claim was filed in good faith before the Trichy Commissionerate, where the excise duty was paid, despite the subsequent amendment in Rule 47. The appellant's plea for considering the substantive right over procedural lapse was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of jurisdiction.

3. The rejection of the claim was solely due to a technical ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellant had the opportunity to present their arguments regarding jurisdiction or request for forwarding the claim to the proper authority before the lower authorities, but failed to do so. Despite the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant was granted liberty to file the refund claim before the correct forum, considering that the claim was initially filed within the due date but before the wrong authority. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the correct jurisdictional procedures for filing refund claims in SEZs to avoid such procedural lapses in the future.