Refund jurisdiction and limitation for SEZ duty refunds are determined by duty-bearer locus standi and payment date under Section 11B.

Refund of excise duty paid on supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit was held maintainable before the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, because the person who actually bore the duty has locus standi to claim refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the SEZ regime does not oust that jurisdiction. The limitation objection was also rejected: where the transaction is completed on payment of the invoice amount, the relevant date for the one-year period under Section 11B is the date of payment, not the date of invoice. The refund claim was therefore held to be within limitation and the time-bar rejection was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities could entertain and decide the refund claim relating to duty paid supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit; (ii) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and, for computing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the relevant date was the date of invoice or the date of payment.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities could entertain and decide the refund claim relating to duty paid supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit.

Analysis: The jurisdiction objection was answered against the Revenue by following the earlier Tribunal view and the Gujarat High Court ruling, which recognized that a refund claim of excise duty is maintainable before the competent Central Excise authorities even where the supplies are made to a Special Economic Zone unit. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that the person who actually paid the duty has locus standi to seek refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that the special economic zone regime does not denude the proper excise authorities of jurisdiction to examine such claims.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the refund claim was held to be maintainable before the Central Excise authorities.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and, for computing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the relevant date was the date of invoice or the date of payment.

Analysis: The limitation question was decided in favour of the assessee on the footing that the transaction in the present kind of supply is completed only on payment of the invoice amount and not on the date of invoice. Since the payments were made after the invoice dates, the period of one year had to be computed from the date of payment. On that basis, the claim fell within limitation and the rejection as time-barred was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be within limitation and the time-bar rejection was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in full, the Revenue's challenge failed, and the refund claims were upheld with the limitation objection overruled.

Ratio Decidendi: For a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the person who actually bore the duty has locus standi to seek refund, and in a transaction completed upon payment, limitation is to be computed from the date of payment rather than the date of invoice.

---