Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1310 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of Rebate claim - Respondents have not furnished the Bill of Exports against all the copies of the said ARE-1s - SEZ Unit - Held that:- Export duty is leviable under Section 12 of Customs Act and definition of export as given in Section 2(18) is relevant for charging export duty. Hon’ble High Court has further held that for charging duty under Section 12 definition of export as given in SEZ Act cannot be incorporated. In the instant case the issue export benefit like rebate/drawback cannot be equated with the issue of charging export duty. As per Section 5 of SEZ Act, 2005, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Rule 30(1) of SEZ Rules, 2006 stipulates that DTA supplier shall clear the goods to SEZ Unit or Developer as in the case of exports either under bond or as duty paid goods under claim of rebate on the cover of ARE-1 referred to in Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The said notification is now replaced by new Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Similarly, drawback benefit and other export entitlements are also made admissible to SEZ suppliers. So the C.B.E. & C. Circular issued in the light of provisions of SEZ Act/Rules cannot be called illegal as contended by department. Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically recorded in his findings that said goods were received in the SEZ Unit and therefore receipt of duty paid goods in SEZ Unit is not in dispute. The non-preparation of bill of export is a procedural lapse for which substantial benefit of rebate cannot be denied - rebate claim of duty paid on goods cleared to SEZ is rightly held admissible by Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. l9/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Government finds no infirmity with said order-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. - Decided against revenue.
|