2016 (6) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

SEZ supplies qualify as exports under SEZ Act & Rules, entitling benefits under various laws. Refund granted under Cenvat Credit Rules.

Sirmaxo Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II

The Tribunal held that supplies to SEZ are exports under the SEZ Act 2005 and SEZ Rules 2006, entitling them to benefits under various laws. The appellant ... Admissibility of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 against the supply of final product to SEZ - lower authority rejected the refund claim of the accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 on the ground that supplies made to SEZ is a deemed export, not a physical export - Held that:- From the statuary provisions under the SEZ Act 2005 and SEZ Rules 2006, it is clear that supplies made to SEZ are considered as exports. Therefore, all the benefits provided for exports under Foreign Trade Policy, Central Excise Act and Customs Act & Rules, made thereunder shall be applicable to supplies made to SEZ unit also. It is clear that in respect of supplies made to SEZ unit; it shall be eligible for all the benefits available under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rules thereunder. Accordingly, the appellant is entitle for the refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The appellant is legal by entitle for the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Decided in fovour of assessee Issues Involved:Refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for supplies to SEZ deemed as export.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for supplies made to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) deemed as export. The lower authority rejected the refund claim on the basis that supplies to SEZ are deemed export, not physical export.2. The appellant argued that supplies to SEZ should be considered as physical export for all purposes. Referring to the SEZ Act 2005 and SEZ Rules 2006, the appellant contended that SEZ is treated as located outside India, making the supplies export. The appellant cited relevant legal provisions and judgments to support their claim.3. The Revenue, represented by Shri N.N. Prabhu Desai, opposed the refund, citing a previous Tribunal order. However, the Tribunal order had been stayed by the Bombay High Court, rendering it non-binding. The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments and legal references in detail.4. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that supplies to SEZ are indeed exports as per the SEZ Act 2005 and SEZ Rules 2006. Therefore, all benefits available for physical exports should apply to supplies made to SEZ. The Tribunal referenced specific statutory provisions and circulars to support this conclusion.5. The Tribunal highlighted that SEZ supplies are eligible for benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy, Central Excise Act, and Customs Act & Rules. Referring to a Board Circular, the Tribunal confirmed that SEZ units are entitled to benefits under the Central Excise Act, 1944, including refunds under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.6. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment demonstrates the thorough consideration of the issues involved and the application of relevant legal provisions to reach a well-reasoned decision in favor of the appellant.