2017 (5) TMI 868 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds SEZ Refund Claim, Emphasizes Binding Precedent

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the refund claim of Central Excise duty paid on goods cleared to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit. The ... Refund claim - Central Excise duty paid on the goods cleared by appellant and claimed as rebate / refund in respect of clearances made to SEZ unit - rejection of rebate claim on the ground of provisions of Rule 18 of the CER, 2002 are not applicable as the amount paid to the appellant does not amount to Central Excise duty - Held that: - the same issue was before the Division Bench in the appellant’s own case. Since the Division Bench has held in favour of the appellant on the same set of facts in appellant's own case AJINKYA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III [2013 (6) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the ruling of the Division Bench is binding on me - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund of Central Excise duty paid on goods cleared to SEZ unit, jurisdiction of Tribunal in rebate claims, applicability of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, binding effect of previous Tribunal rulings.Analysis:The appeal pertains to a refund claim of Central Excise duty paid on goods cleared to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the rebate claim, which was later set aside by the first appellate authority. The appellant challenged this decision through the current appeal. The partner of the appellant highlighted a previous Tribunal order related to similar issues, where the Division Bench upheld the rebate claim. The appellant argued that this previous ruling should apply to the current case as well.The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals related to rebate claims as per Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The D.R. cited judgments from the High Courts of Gujarat and Karnataka to support this argument. However, the partner of the appellant pointed out that the Revenue did not appeal a previous order sanctioning rebate claims, which had been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. This non-appeal was considered significant in the current case.Upon careful examination of the records, the presiding Member found that the first appellate authority rejected the rebate claim citing Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, stating that the amount paid did not constitute Central Excise duty. However, since a Division Bench had previously ruled in favor of the appellant on similar grounds, the presiding Member deemed the Division Bench's decision binding. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The presiding Member also noted that the Revenue's failure to appeal the previous order further supported the decision to allow the appellant's claim.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the binding nature of the previous Division Bench ruling in favor of the appellant and the lack of appeal by the Revenue against the previous order sanctioning rebate claims. This judgment underscores the importance of consistency in decisions and the impact of non-appeal on the finality of legal determinations.