9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld Ltd., though by applying the relevant provisions of law, they ought not to have paid the duty as the are to recognized SEZ unit/developer. Regarding the duty paid nature of the product, receipt of the said product by the appellant, there are no disputes - the jurisdiction issue has been under consideration with the Ministry of Finance as well as Minintry of Commerce and ultimately the Ministry of Commerce issued Notification dated 05.08.2016. This Notification specified that the refund, demand, jurisdiction, review and the appeal with reference to various operations under SEZ Act, 2005, shall be with a jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, it is also recorded that the due procedure for clearance of coal to the appellant, like ER-1 etc, has not been followed in the present case. On this ground also, the claims were not accepted. On appeal filed by the appellants, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. He also followed the same reasons adopted by the adjudicating authority. 2. The ld.Counsel for the appellants submits that in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, any person who suffers Central Excise duty, which is not payable as per law, can apply for refund of the same. This legal position is well-settled. He, however, stated that the supplier of coal has paid the duty, which should not have been paid and duty insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court observed 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. In the said case also, the claim was not filed by the manufacturer, who discharged the duty on the goods, but by the buyer of the goods. Similar ratio has been followed by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Commr. (K-II), Central Excise : 2016 (331) ELT 386 (All.). 6. In such situation, we note that the appellants do have locus-standi to prefer the claim for refund, if the same is not payable/paid in excess, as authorized by law. 7. The next point is for jurisdiction to prefer to such claim. The lower authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to various operations under SEZ Act, 2005, shall be with a jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994. We find that the said Notification makes the position amply clear on the question of jurisdiction of Central Excise officers to deal with the claim in the present matter. 9. In view of the above discussions and analysis, we set aside the impugned order and direct the original authority to examine the claim afresh on merit along with the connected documents and pass a fresh order on the claim made by the appellants, keeping in view the above observations. 10. At this juncture, the ld.Counsel requested for early reso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
