TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner company for refund claim stating that SEZ units are not eligible for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) refund. Held that:- the the competent authority, that is, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits and returned the claim on the ground that the unit of the petitioner is not situated within the SEZ, and thus, he is not having jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court with which we are in agreement, such application for refund ought to be considered by the competent authority under the Customs Act alone. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division directed to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the letter dated 19.7.2012 (Annexure-13 page 46) issued by the respondent No.4- Assistant Commissioner of the Central Excise and Customs and to direct the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner of the Central Excise and Customs or such other authority as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper, to decide all the 11 refund claims/applications dated 12.12.2012 of the petitioner company which were the subject matter of the impugned decision dated 8.2.2013 (Annexure-1) of the respondent No.2- Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone. 3. The petitioner company is having its unit located at Dahej Special Economic Zone. The petitioner company uses High Speed Diesel (HSD) for its various operations. It procures H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Akshay Vakil, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this case submits that under the provisions of Section 26 of the SEZ Act, the petitioner company is entitled to refund of excise duty. It is submitted that in absence of any special mechanism provided to consider the refund claims under the provisions of the SEZ Act, the authority under the Customs and Central Excise Act, alone is having jurisdiction to consider the refund claims. In spite of submitting the applications on 29.6.2012 to the said competent authority, the said applications were returned only on the ground that such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess proper mechanism is framed under the SEZ laws and statutory provisions are enacted/amended, the Commissionerate of Customs would continue to hold the authority under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 to entertain refund claims of excess payment of customs duty, redemption fine or penalties as the case may be, adjudicated and collected by the Customs authority under the Customs Act, 1962, even with respect to units situated in SEZ areas. Whatever refund claims being returned to the petitioners by the Customs Commissionerate, the petitioners would represent the same to the appropriate authority. If the petitioners do so latest by 15.12.2014, all such applications shall relate back to the first presentation before the Customs authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
