TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004-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. - F. Nos. 198/3-4-/2012-RA - 1314-1315/2013-CX - Dated:- 14-10-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary None, for the Department. Shri Rachit Jain Joyoti Pal, Advocates, for the Assessee. ORDER These revision applications are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty under the Customs Act, 1962. In other words, a definition given under an Act cannot be displaced by a definition of the same term given in another enactment, more so, when the provisions of the first Act are being invoked. Even in the absence of a definition of the term in the subject statute, a definition contained in another statute cannot be adopted since a word may mean different things depending on the setting and context. Reference is invited to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, (1998) 1 S.C.C. 384, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Limited, (1999) 3 S.C.C. 632 and M/s. Qazi Noorul H. H. H. Petrol Pump Another v. Dy. Director, E.S.I. Corporation, reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) = AIR 2009 S.C.W. 5490. In fact, the interpretation canvassed by the department is not merely the adoption of a definition of another Statute, but the incorporation of a taxable event itself, which is impermissible under the law . Further while examining the similar issue, it has been held by the Hon ble CESTAT, Mumbai in CCE, Thane-I v. Tiger Steel Engineering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that impugned orders-in-appeal being legal and proper may be upheld. They further contended that said revision application is time barred and liable to be rejected on this count also. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral and written submissions and perused the impugned orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that applicant department stated in the application that they had wrongly filed appeal before CESTAT Mumbai on 22-11-2010 against said order-in-appeal received on 27-8-2010, which was rejected by Hon ble Tribunal vide order dated 29-8-2011 as non-maintainable as per provision of Section 35B(1) first proviso of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, department has contended that they were pursuing appeal before CESTAT upto 2-11-2011 and time spent upto said date may be excluded in terms of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act, 1963 for the purposes of Section 35EE(2). The revision applications are filed on 12-1-2012. As such the applications filed on 12-1-2012 is within 6 months of the receipt of impugned order-in-appeal. Government notes that Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in W.P. No. 9585 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. A view has been put forth that rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 is admissible only when the goods are exported out of India and not when supplies are made to SEZ. 3. The matter has been examined. The Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006 was issued after considering all the relevant points and it was clarified that rebate under Rule 18 is admissible when the supplies are made from DTA to SEZ. The Circular also lays down the procedure and the documentation for effecting supply of goods from DTA to SEZ, by modifying the procedure for normal export. Clearance of duty free material for authorised operation in the SEZ is admissible under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and procedure under Rule 18 or Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules is followed to give effect to this provision of the SEZ Act, as envisaged under Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006. 4. Therefore, it is viewed that the settled position that rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is admissible for supplies made from DTA to SEZ does not warrant any change even if Rule 18 does not mention such supplies in clear terms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch refund is not available since Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules does not cover such a situation granting benefit of deemed export. It is Revenue s case that only physical export would qualify for refund. We need not record the submissions at length since we find that similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 968 of 2008 [2011 (269) E.L.T. 17 (Guj.)]. One of the questions posed before the Court was as follows : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed a substantial error of law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the clearances made by one 100% EOU to another 100% EOU which are deemed exports are to be treated as physical exports for the purpose of entitling refund of unutilized Cenvat credit contemplated under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 3. The Division Bench after taking into account the detail submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties held and observed as under : 14. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court has already dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. 16. In the above fact situation, we are of the view that no question of law much less any substantial question of law, arises out of the order of the Tribunal and even if it arises, the answer is very obvious and we, therefore, hold that the Tribunal is justified and has not committed any substantial error of law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the clearances made by one 100% EOU to another 100% EOU which are deemed exports are to be treated as physical exports for the purpose of entitling refund of unutilized Cenvat credit contemplated under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Counsel for the Revenue, however, submitted that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case reported in 2007 (211) E.L.T. 23 (Mad.) has taken a different view. We find that the decision of this Court being directly on the issue, we are bound by the said decision. Further we find that the Apex Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai, 2007 (211) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), though not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
