Jurisdiction clarified for rebate claims on goods supplied to Special Economic Zones within India.

The Tribunal referred the issue of jurisdiction over appeals concerning rebate claims for goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) within India to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal clarified that as per the proviso to Section 35B(1), appeals do lie when goods are supplied to an SEZ within India, as they are not considered exports outside India. The decision aimed to resolve conflicting interpretations and establish a consistent approach between the Tribunal and the Revisionary Authority on hearing such appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeals in relation to the admissibility of rebate claim under Section 35B(1) proviso to clause (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of the maintainability of appeals concerning the admissibility of rebate claims under Section 35B(1) proviso to clause (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) within India do not fall under the exclusion clause as they were not exported outside India. The appellant cited previous cases where the Tribunal entertained appeals in similar situations. However, the Revenue contended that since the supply to SEZ is treated as export, it falls under the exclusion clause, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. The Revenue referred to cases where the Tribunal did not entertain appeals on the same issue and highlighted that the Revisionary Authority to the Government of India had entertained similar cases. The Tribunal noted conflicting views and decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to determine whether appeals related to rebate claims for goods supplied to SEZ within India should be heard by the Tribunal or the Revisionary Authority.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the proviso to Section 35B(1), which specifies that appeals shall not lie where goods are exported outside India. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain language of the provision indicates that only exports to countries outside India fall under the exclusion clause. As the goods in this case were supplied to an SEZ within India, the Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. However, recognizing the divergent views within the Tribunal and the Revisionary Authority, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for clarification on whether such appeals should be heard by the Tribunal or the Revisionary Authority. The decision to refer the matter to a Larger Bench was made to resolve the conflicting interpretations and establish a consistent approach in cases involving rebate claims for goods supplied to SEZ within India.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the registry to place the matter before the Honorable President for constituting a Larger Bench to address the question of jurisdiction regarding appeals related to rebate claims for goods supplied to SEZ within India. The judgment reflects the need for clarity and consistency in determining the appropriate forum for such appeals, considering the differing opinions within the Tribunal and the Revisionary Authority.

---