TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed in N/N. 58/2003 which was in force at that point of time - appellants are not entitled to refund of the duty paid as they have not followed the procedure prescribed under law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/503/2008-SM - 20690/2017 - Dated:- 15-5-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. M. S. Nagaraj, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund claimed by the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provisions. He further submitted that the appellant supplied the material on payment of duty and later filed the refund claim which was rejected for not following the prescribed procedure. He further submitted that the supplies were made to M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd., which was a SEZ unit as approved by the Development Commissioner and M/s. Infosys Technologies vide their certificate dated 6.8.2007 have confirmed the receipt of the goods, their use for construction of M/s. Infosys Building in Chandigarh SEZ Unit and they have also claimed exemption from payment of excise duty. He further submitted that the rejection of claim is beyond the scope of show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable goods can be supplied to SEZ under bond without payment of excise duty or on payment of duty and under claim for rebate of duty following Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 under Rule 30 of SEZ, 2006 reads as follows: 30. Procedure for procurements from the Domestic Tariff Are: (1) The Domestic Tariff Area supplier supplying goods to a Unit or Developer shall clear the goods, 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.40/2001-Central Excise (NT) dated 25th June 2001 in quintuplicate bearing running serial number beginning from the first day of the financial year. He also submitted that in this case the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have made the supplies to M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd. which was a SEZ unit during the relevant time and the said supplies were made on payments of duty and later filed refund claim for the same on the ground that any supplies made to SEZ unit is not taxable. But the appellants have failed to follow the procedure which is prescribed in the SEZ Act for claiming exemption. Further appellant have also not followed the procedure as prescribed in Notification No.58/2003 which was in force at that point of time. The learned Commissioner has considered all the grounds which were raised by the appellant and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant have not followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible provided the goods are exempt from payment of duty leviable under statute. As already observed above, there is no exemption notification granting waiver from payment of duty leviable. The clearances to SEZ under bend or under claim for rebate of duty is subject to observance of various conditions. Neither before the lower authority nor during these appeal proceedings the appellant have demonstrated that barring the procedural formalities they; satisfy other conditions covering the clearance to SEZ. Since the goods were paid on payment of duty they should have followed the correct procedure even to claim rebate, if not refund. Refund claim cannot be converted into rebate claim in the absence of following prescribed procedure. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
