9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity to the assessee-Appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 75308 of 2017 with Excise Misc. Application No. 75799 of 2017 - Final Order No. FO/A/77091/2017 & MO/75330/2017 - Dated:- 31-8-2017 - Satish Chandra, President And V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellants : Sh. Naresh Thakkar, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. D. Haldar, DR ORDER Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra Shri Naresh Thakkar, learned Counsel for the assessee-Appellants, submits that an early hearing may kindly be granted for the reason that this is a matter of refund. 2. After hearing the rival submissions, we grant the early hearing of the matter. Consequently, the Misc. Application for early hearing is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 instance has been suffered at the hand of the appellant. They are claimants of the same in terms of Section 11B. Regarding the claimants located at SEZ being outside jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities, he submitted that the duty h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 authorities held that in terms of SEZ Act, the appellant is situated outside territory of India and no claim can be entertained by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. We note that the similar issue has come up before the Hon ble Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id 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 resolution of their claim since the claims were pending from 2011. Accordingly, we direct the jurisdictional officer to examine the claims and pass an order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. By fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
