TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d: E/ 21087/2017-5M, E/ 21137/2017-SM - Final Order Nos. 20291-20292/2018 - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - MR. SHRI S.S GANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Soloman C. Raj/ Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Naveen K, Joint Commissioner, For the Respondent Per: SS GARG The Appeal No, E/ 21087/2017 has been filed by the Department and Appeal Noe E/ 21137/2017 filed by the assessee against the common impugned order dated 20.05, 2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 11/94,519/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only) on the ground that the claim filed after a lapse of one year from the date of purchase, However, the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction to decide the claim It was also seen that the HPCL had sold the LPG on commercial invoices. Since proper documents were not submitted the refund application was proposed to be rejected vide a notice dated 22.0512015. After considering the reply of the assessee the lower authority has rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower authorities, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) held that the rejection of refund to the extent of Rss 11/94/519/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only) being barred by limitation is correct but the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of the balance amount of ₹ 23/36,069/- (Rupees Twenty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion Bench of this Tribunal has held as under: 5 Regarding the claim of refund of Central Excise duty, we note that Section 11B states any person claiming refund of any duty of excise . No distinction has been made that the claimant should be the manufacturer or the person, who paid the duty to the Government In this regard, we refer to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd, Vs, Cormmr. of Central Excise, Bolpur: 2015 (318) ELT 617 (S. wherein the Apex Court observed that the appellant, who had paid the Excise duty to the manufactuer, had the locus-standi, to file the application claiming the refund of duty. In the said case also, the claim was not filed by the manufacturer, Who disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, submitted that the details of duty paid on coal covered by the various documents has been certified by the specified officer-in-charge of the appellant in the SEZ. 8. We also note that the jurisdiction issue has been under consideration with the Ministry of Finance as well as Ministry of Commerce and ultimately the Ministry of Commerce issued Notification date 05, 08.2016. This Notification specified that the refund, demand, jurisdiction, review and the appeal with reference to various operations under SEZ Act, 2005, shall be with a jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1 962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994. We find that the said Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roleum Corporation Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises recognized Oil Marketing Company who run and supply LPG to another entities. The HPCL supplied the requisite quantity of LPG through MRPL, Mangalore pipeline to OMPL. Receipt of the goods has been confirmed by receiving SEZ unit and there is no dispute regarding the supply of goods for the authorized operation of OMPL, the assessee. He further submitted that the relevant date under Section 11B is to be computed from the date of payment and not from the date of invoice. He further submitted that the sale transaction completes only on payment of amounts indicated in the invoice issued by the supplier and in the instant case the supplier is M/S. HPCL and their invoices are dated fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
