9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 986 - CGOVT - CustomsRejection of request of fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback - Held that - Legal provisions of the applicable statute clearly debars respondent case herein because the said amendment in Rule 30(8) is applicable only to the cases of supply to a SEZ developers who was provided limited/temporary relief at that time. Therefore in this background that above relief was provided for SEZ developers only which cannot be stretched so as to be made applicable to all the suppliers to SEZ Units also. - Respondent herein was bound to receive payments of stated exports i.e. supplies to a SEZ Unit in freely convertible foreign exchange only and not in Indian rupees. Any other provisions/procedure of reimbursement of any benefits cannot override the above statutory provisions of applicable Rules. Government therefore set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal for not being legal & proper and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006 regarding reimbursement of duty in lieu of drawback. 2. Applicability of statutory provisions to supply of goods to SEZ Units. 3. Compliance with conditions for claiming drawback. 4. Proper interpretation of legal provisions and relevant case laws. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006, specifically regarding the reimbursement of duty in lieu of drawback. The Government highlighted that the amendment to the rule only applied to SEZ developers, not to SEZ Units. The amendment did not extend this benefit to supply of goods by a DTA supplier to an SEZ Unit. The Government emphasized the importance of a plain reading of statutory provisions and cited relevant case laws to support its interpretation. Issue 2: Applicability of statutory provisions to supply of goods to SEZ Units The central question revolved around whether the statutory provisions regarding reimbursement of duty applied to supplies made to SEZ Units. The Government concluded that the respondent was required to receive payments in freely convertible foreign exchange for exports to a SEZ Unit, as per the applicable rules. It was determined that the relief provided in the relevant amendment was only for SEZ developers and could not be extended to suppliers to SEZ Units. Issue 3: Compliance with conditions for claiming drawback The case also addressed the compliance with conditions for claiming drawback, such as proof of payment in freely convertible currency and the submission of a disclaimer certificate. The original authority had rejected the application for drawback on these grounds, which were later addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department did not contest these reliefs but challenged the interpretation of the statutory provisions. Issue 4: Proper interpretation of legal provisions and relevant case laws The respondents argued that the department sought to deny the benefit of drawback on frivolous grounds and failed to consider the fulfillment of conditions by them. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. However, the Government upheld its interpretation of the statutory provisions and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, restoring the Order-in-Original. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper interpretation of Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006, and the applicability of statutory provisions to supplies made to SEZ Units. It emphasized the importance of complying with conditions for claiming drawback and highlighted the significance of a plain reading of legal provisions and relevant case laws in resolving disputes related to duty reimbursement.
|
