TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not in Indian rupees. Any other provisions/procedure of reimbursement of any benefits cannot override the above statutory provisions of applicable Rules. Government therefore set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal for not being legal & proper and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. - Decided in favour of assessee. - F. No. 380/53/DBK/2011-RA - 390/2012-Cus. - Dated:- 4-10-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Neerav Mainkar, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane-I Commissionerate, Mumbai against the Orders-in-Appeal No. YDB(211-212)/Th-I/2011, dated 21-9-2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Domestic Tariff Area supplier to Special Economic Zone developers shall be admissible even if payment is made in Indian rupees. Reimbursement of duty in lieu of drawback against supply of goods to Special Economic Zone developer shall be made as per the procedure prescribed by the Central Government. Further, vide EPCES Circular No. 53, dated 24-2-2009 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries it has been clarified that because of above referred amendment in Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006, a guideline prescribing the procedure for reimbursement of duty in lieu of drawback for supply of goods to SEZ developers against Indian rupees has been prescribed. 4.2 From the above it is quite clear that the facility of reimbursement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s would like to state that it can be seen that in the aforesaid letters dated 21-5-2010, the Deputy Commissioner has clearly mentioned the words SEZ Unit and SEZ Developers in all references to Customs Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-7-2003, Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and Circular No. 43/2007-Cus., dated 5-12-2007. As such, the Original Authority, which rejected the drawback claims was very much seized of the fact that drawback was available to supplies made by DTA Units to SEZ Units as well as SEZ Developers and the said Drawback claims were not rejected on the grounds now urged by the applicant but on entirely different grounds, which no longer exist and which are not urged by the applicant in the said application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudice to whatever is stated hereinabove, the respondents wish to state and submit that the applicant has sought to deny the substantial benefit of Drawback of duty paid by the respondents on frivolous and unsubstantiated grounds despite the respondents having complied with all the conditions for the same. As such, the respondents wish to state and submit that the department is not at liberty to impute meaning to unambiguous terms and deny the benefit of drawback of duty paid by them on frivolous grounds and by failing to take cognizance of the fulfilment of conditions by them. In this regard, the respondent wish to rely upon the following settled cases laws :- (i) 2009 (235) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) in the Supreme Court of India Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of jurisdictional authority, the respondent herein filed appeal before Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I who after due consideration of submissions and after perusal/interpreting the relevant provisions of law allowed the same thereby providing relief from Time-bar aspect and admitting the submitted Disclaimer Certificate . The department is also not contesting these two reliefs but has filed the present revision application on the interpretations of the applicability of provisions of relevant Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006 as was amended vide Notification GSR 72(E), dated 3-2-2009 (proviso) read with provisions of Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-7-2003. Government notes that the respondents herein i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g held on 7th August, 2008 agreed to the request received from the various quarters for reimbursement of Duty (RoD) for supply of goods to SEZ Developers against Indian rupees. Accordingly, Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules has been amended vide GSR 72(E), dated 3rd February, 2009. 8.4 The plain reading of above statutory provisions reveals that the said amendment talks of SEZ developers only otherwise the words Units and/or Developers would have been used. The said amendment does not extend; this benefit in case of supply of goods by DTA supplier to SEZ Unit. There is no ambiguity in the said provision of Section 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006. Government notes that the matter is to be considered and proceeded in the light of Hon ble Supreme Court s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
