Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2012 (7) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 875 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - non-submission of certain documents - unjust enrichment - certain supplies were made only to contractor and Bill of Exports were not filed - Held that:- Concept of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the matters of exports, as stands specified in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944. - there are some differences in the stated factual details such as non-availabilities of relevant required documents and also details contained in submitted documents - Since the supplies are made to SEZ developer/Co-developer and contractors the Central Excise Invoices are issued on the name of buyers. It is observed that in case contactors, invoices were to be issued on the name both contactors and co-developers/developers as required under SEZ Rules. The rebate claim will be admissible if the duty paying document are valid and there is no discrepancy in such document. Case matter involves provisions of implementation of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 which has an overall overriding effect - excisable goods manufactured by the registered factory and cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty as per the invoices/ARE-1s/Bill of Export which clearly indicates the consignee’s place as an SEZ. The goods are received in full in SEZ as per certification of Customs Officers recorded on the relevant ARE-1s/Shipping Bills/Bill of Exports. The receipt of said goods in SEZ is not disputed in these cases. - Since the verification of requisite documents as observed in foregoing para is required to be done by original authority to determine the admissible rebate claim amount, the case is required to be remanded back for fresh consideration. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|