9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming into effect of Notification dated 05-08-2016 will be sanctioned by Customs, Central Excise or Service Tax or CGST authorities. Inserted Rule 47(5) in SEZ Rules 2006 empowers Customs officers to issue refund claims. All field officers are bound to follow directives issued by CBIC. The authorities seems to have rejected Refund claims by O-I-O and then by O-I-A dated. 12-09-2018 for one or the other unjustified unwarranted reasons. - also, Refund claims were filed in permitted time limit of one year. This is clear from the fact that section 27 amended w.e.f. 08-04-2011 has substituted the period of Six months to One year. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The incidence of ₹ 2,79,924/- and ₹ 54,733/- paid against said 10 Bill of Entry have not been recovered from any other person or customers and has been absorbed by M/s Suchi Fastners PVT Ltd. Further, Declarations submitted by DTA importer with their CA Certificates also show that they have also not recovered excess amount of duty from any other persons. These documents are adequate to pass the hurdle of unjust enrichment . Interest - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that SAD refund of ₹ 54,733/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spose of claims on merits as per the law. Revenue rejected refunds again by second O-I-O/O-I-A on similar grounds. In the meanwhile, amendment were made in SEZ Rules on 05.08.2016, by inserting new Rule 47(5) in SEZ Rules 2006, empowering authority under Central Excise and Customs to deal with refund cases pertaining to the SEZ units. This CESTAT vide Order No. A/10714-10715/2016 dated 16-08-2016, again remanded the matter to original authority to consider Refund claims afresh. O-I-O rejected Refund claims and in an Appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected Refunds by the impugned O-I-A No. 100-AGU-ADT-VAD-2017-18 dated 12-09-2018 for two reasons i.e. (a) Appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim that imported goods were of the description as mentioned in the Notification and (b)holding that no provisions exist in the SEZ Act for grant of refund. SAD Refund claim of ₹ 54,733/, has been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) holding that SAD Refund is eligible only when the goods are imported for Re-Sale. Hence, Appellant is before this Hon ble CESTAT in 3rd round of litigation for the same refund claims. Appeal by Appellant was taken up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , may it be matter of levy and recovery of duty or the refunds. It is settled that for building any such case, revenue has to consolidate all their points against an assessee and incorporate in Show Cause Notice and also to provide opportunity to Assessee to defend their case in compliance to principles of Natural Justice. The view not incorporated in SCN may be seen from O-I-O by the authority. The view point not pursued or argued by Revenue in SCN or O-I-O, cannot be argued in law at subsequent stage of the proceedings. It is also settled that orders beyond the scope of SCN are not sustainable in the settled law. He argued that in facts of this case, this is 3rd round of litigation before CESTAT. However, Revenue has neither issued SCN nor argued this view point in any of earlier proceedings or filed any appeal against OI-O/O-I-A issued. Revenue s such argument cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time, during hearing in second appeal filed by Appellant before Hon ble CESTAT. CBEC Circular No. 24/2007-Cus dated 02-07-2007 shows that Refund applications are required to be scrutinized for completeness within 10 working days of its initial receipt. Hence, if any deficiency i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IC Circular No. 11/2017-Cus dated 31-3-2017 has clarified in Para 3.3, question how old cases of refund pending as on the date of coming into effect of Notification dated 05-08-2016 will be sanctioned by Customs, Central Excise or Service Tax or CGST authorities. Inserted Rule 47(5) in SEZ Rules 2006 empowers Customs officers to issue refund claims. All field officers are bound to follow directives issued by CBIC. The authorities seems to have rejected Refund claims by O-I-O and then by O-I-A dated. 12-09-2018 for one or the other unjustified unwarranted reasons. Finding for rejecting BCD refund of ₹ 2,79,924/-are not correct and justified, as such Stainless Steel Scrap cleared from SEZ to DTA can be used only after melting it first, for manufacturing goods like Valve Pumps Parts and investment casting product etc with help of using furnace in factory. Stainless Steel Scrap cleared by Appellant from SEZ unit to DTA was used for melting is also established by documentary evidences perusing copies of Central Excise Registrations, Certificates of DTA buyers and their declarations that the said stainless steel scrap was used for melting in DTA. Regarding 4 % SAD claim of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same from DTA buyers. Therefore, incidence of ₹ 2,79,924/- and ₹ 54,733/- paid against said 10 Bill of Entry have not been recovered from any other person or customers and has been absorbed by M/s Suchi Fastners PVT Ltd. Further, Declarations submitted by DTA importer with their CA Certificates also show that they have also not recovered excess amount of duty from any other persons. These documents are adequate to pass the hurdle of unjust enrichment . 9. I find that 3 conditions [(1) eligibility to Refund (2) claim within time limit of One year and (3) unjust enrichment] for allowing refunds have been satisfied by Appellant. Hence, instead of remanding it again for processing the claim, I find it appropriate to decide case here and it would be in the interest of justice under Rule 40 and 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982. Accordingly, I hold that the Appellant is eligible for BCD Refund of Rs, 2,79,924/- and SAD Refund of ₹ 54,733/- claimed for Excess BCD and excess SAD paid at the time of clearance of Stainless Steel Scrap from SEZ unit to DTA. 10. There is no dispute that SAD refund of ₹ 54,733/- was filed on 11-10-2010 and BCD Refund claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
