2015 (2) TMI 966 - AT - Central Excise

Dispute over SEZ rebate claim on TMT bars dismissed due to jurisdictional limits.

M/s. RKKR Steels Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai-I

The appeal regarding the sanction of a rebate claim on TMT bars supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) was dismissed under the first proviso to Section ... Maintainability of appeal - Denial of rebate claim - SEZ - Held that:- issue relates to the sanction of rebate claims on TMT bars supplied to SEZ. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned the rebate claim of ₹ 16,98,128/- on the duty paid on the goods supplied to SEZ units. Whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue appeal and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, in terms of first proviso (b) to Section 35 B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no appeal shall lie before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), if the order relates to rebate of duty of excise on goods exported. Since, the appeal filed by the appellant relates to rebate of duty, it is outside the powers vested by this Tribunal under the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed under the first proviso to Section 35 B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the appellant is at liberty to file appeal before the Government of India, Revision Authority. - Decided against assesse. Issues involved:Sanction of rebate claim on TMT bars supplied to SEZ under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006.Analysis:1. Preliminary Objection Raised by Ld. AR:The Ld. AR representing the Revenue raised a preliminary objection concerning the sanction of a rebate claim amounting to Rs. 16,98,128/- by the adjudicating authority for the specified periods on TMT bars supplied to SEZ. Due to the narrow scope of the issue, the stay application was dispensed with, and the appeal hearing was initiated.2. Adjudication and Appeal Process:After hearing both parties and examining the records, it was observed that the core issue revolved around the sanction of rebate claims on TMT bars provided to SEZ units. The adjudicating authority had approved a rebate claim of Rs. 16,98,128/- on the duty paid for goods supplied to SEZ. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, citing the first proviso (b) to Section 35 B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to this provision, no appeal can be made to the Tribunal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order concerning the rebate of excise duty on exported goods. As the appellant's appeal pertained to duty rebate, it was deemed beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Act.3. Dismissal of Appeal and Further Course of Action:Consequently, the appeal was dismissed under the first proviso to Section 35 B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was granted the liberty to file an appeal before the Government of India, Revision Authority. Both the miscellaneous application and the appeal were dismissed based on the aforementioned grounds, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.