9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 08.02.2013 (Annexure-I) of the Respondent No.2- Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ and thereby grant the 11 refund applications all dated 12/12/2012 (Annexure-16 collectively) (B) To stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the communication/decision dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure-1) of the Respondent No.2-Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ; (C) To provide for the costs of the present Special Civil Application; (D) To pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;" 2. Further, by way of amendment granted by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2016, the following prayer is added: "(AA) to quash and set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se & Customs, Bharuch Division. The said application for refund is returned vide letter dated 19th July, 2012 only on the ground that the factory of the petitioner is not under its jurisdiction. Thus, the petitioner's refund claim was returned for taking further action by the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner company approached the Development Commissioner of Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ), Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The said authority has passed an order dated 8.2.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner company for refund claim stating that SEZ units are not eligible for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) refund. 5. Heard Mr. S.N.Soparkar, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned counsel for the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of this Court dated 20.11.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No.11876 of 2014 and allied matters, the question, namely, which authority is competent to entertain and dispose of the refund claims of the units situated within the SEZ under the Customs Act, 1962, fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the validity of the letter dated 1.11.2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: "18. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, the directives issued by the Ministry of Finance in its letter dated 1.11.2012 are invalid and would have no force of law. It is declared that unless proper mechanism is framed under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by setting aside the order dated 19.7.2012 issued by the respondent no.4 - Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Bharuch Division and further order dated 8.2.2013 issued by the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone. Consequently, we direct the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division to consider the refund applications filed by the petitioner on its own merits and to pass appropriate orders. The petitioner shall make representation to the competent authority in this regard enclosing the copy of the earlier refund claim dated 29.6.2012 and the copy of this judgment within a period of 6 weeks from today. The competent authority shall treat the date of the applications dated 29.6.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
