2008 (5) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds duty refund claim for goods to SEZs, citing compliance with Notification No. 58/2003.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus PARABOLIC DRUGS LTD.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the refund claim for duty paid on goods cleared to Special Economic Zones. Despite ... Refund claim for duty paid in respect of goods cleared to a unit located in SEZ - Notification No. 58/2003-C.E. dated 22-7-2003 provides exemption from whole of Central Excise duty for export to units located in SEZ – in the impugned case, there is no dispute regarding receipt of goods by the unit located in SEZ – since duty was no required to be paid in view of above exemption notification, refund is allowable Issues:- Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund claim for duty paid on goods cleared to Special Economic Zones.- Discrepancies in the description of goods and documentation related to export.- Dispute over payment of duty under Notification No. 58/2003 for goods cleared to Special Economic Zones.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning a refund claim for duty paid on goods cleared to a unit in Special Economic Zones. The respondent had filed the refund claim based on Notification No. 58/2003-C.E., which exempts goods cleared to SEZs from Central Excise duty for export. The Revenue contested the sanction order, citing discrepancies in the description of goods and documentation related to the export process.2. The main objection raised by the Revenue was regarding the description of the goods mentioned in the ARE-1 form as 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate BP Compacted,' while the export documents referred to the goods as 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate Compacted BP.' Additionally, the Revenue pointed out that the reference to the notification and the accuracy of the advance license number were missing in the ARE-1 and invoices. The Revenue argued that the goods should have been cleared at a Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 58/2003 but were instead cleared on payment of duty.3. The Tribunal noted that the crux of the Revenue's argument was that the respondents were not liable to pay duty as per the provisions of Notification No. 58/2003. However, it was observed that the description of the goods was consistent between the ARE-1 form and the export documents. There was no dispute regarding the clearance of goods to an SEZ unit and the receipt of the goods by the receiving unit. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal found no deficiency in the impugned order and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.4. The judgment, delivered by the Tribunal, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund claim for duty paid on goods cleared to Special Economic Zones. The discrepancies highlighted by the Revenue in the description of goods and documentation were deemed insufficient to challenge the validity of the sanction order based on Notification No. 58/2003. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the essential elements of the case, emphasizing the consistency in the description of goods and the fulfillment of conditions for duty exemption under the relevant notification.