9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt further notes that original authority did not discuss this issue in either show cause notices or in Order-in-Original. However, the applicant has elaborated the factual issue in respect of said supplies to both the parties in SEZ. Government is of opinion that the original authority may verify this aspect and if the supply in these cases is found to be in terms of provision of Rule 10 of SEZ Rules then, claim rebate may be sanctioned - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Appellant. - F.Nos. 195/135 and 136-137/2011-RA - Order Nos. 63-65/2013-CX - Dated:- 22-1-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Pankaj Malik, Advocate and M.S. Subramaniam, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER These revision applications are filed by M/s. Indo Alusys Industries Ltd., Bhiwadi against the Orders-in-Appeal No. 482 (DKV) C.E./JPR-I/10, dated 1-11-2010 457-458 (DKV) C.E./JPR-I/10, dated 26-10-2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-I with respect to Orders-in-Original passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division, Bhiwadi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in the Show Cause Notices as well as in the Orders-in-Original and the applicants were never out to the notice on the grounds which have been taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.2 In some of the cases, the supply is to DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd. for contract with DLF Limited, SEZ Developer vide letter of Approval No. F2/137/05 EPZ dated 6-12-2006, DLF City, Sector-30, Silokhera, Gurgaon. Rule 10 of SEZ Rules, 2006 clearly extend all exemptions, drawbacks and concessions on the goods and services allowed to a Developer or Co-developer to the Contractors including Sub-contractors appointed by such Developer or Co-developer and in the instant case DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd. is the Contractor for DLF Limited the SEZ Developer and all the documents viz. ARE-1, Invoice etc. bear the name of the Developer along with the Contractor and sufficient proof of exports were submitted to the Jurisdictional Authorities. On this grounds only the impugned Orders-in-Appeal are liable to be set aside. The applicant has relied upon same case laws in favour of their contention. 4.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) has not controverted the claim of the Applicants that exports were not made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur-1 in case of M/s. P.K. Tubes Fitting Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-458, Chopanki involving the same issue in favour of the assessee, has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed with the revesinary authority Government of India. In this connection it is submitted that it is not the case of department that the said Order-in-Appeal has either been stayed or overruled by the Higher Appellate Authority, it would therefore be appreciated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India that the said Order-in-Appeal is still holding field and the Assistant Commissioner should have followed the ratio of the said Order-in-Appeal. In support of contention as above reliance is placed on Hon ble Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Co., Ltd., reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 10-10-2012 6-12-2012. Personal hearing held on 6-12-2012 was attended by Shri Pankaj Malik, advocate Shri M.S. Subramaniam on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of Revision Applications. They have relied upon G.O.I. order in case of P.K. Tubes and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e substantial benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied only for this lapse. Government further observes that Customs Officer of SEZ Unit has endorsed on relevant ARE-1 Form that the goods have been duly received by them. The Customs Officer should have asked for Bill of Export while accepting the receipt of goods. As such duty paid nature of goods and supply of such duty paid goods to SEZ is not under dispute. As such, rejection of rebate claims by the original authority on the ground of non-submission of Bills of Export is not sustainable, as correctly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Government observes that the appellate authority held that the applicant could not produce any evidence to prove that they supplied impugned goods to SEZ unit or developer in order to be eligible of rebate benefit under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w the Board s Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 29-12-2006. 9.1 Government finds that in order to decide the issue, it is necessary to peruse the relevant legal/statutory provision which are reproduced below :- Rule 10 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, reads as follows :- . . Provided further that exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
