2018 (6) TMI 765 - AT - Central Excise

SEZ refund appeals remanded over compliance issues with

CCE, Chennai-I Versus M/s. Mercury Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal remanded two appeals involving a SEZ unit's refund claim for duty paid on procuring HSD oil from DTA. The department rejected the refund ... Refund/rebate claim - rejection on the ground that the appellant had not furnished necessary documents - Held that:- appellant claims that if given a chance the assessee would be able to furnish necessary documents - both the appeals require to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:1. Refund claim by SEZ unit for duty paid on procurement of High Speed Diesel (HSD) oil from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).2. Non-compliance with Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006 and lack of submission of required documents.3. Rejection of refund claim by the department.4. Appeal against rejection of refund claim by the SEZ unit.Analysis:1. The case involved a refund claim by a SEZ unit for duty paid on procuring HSD oil from DTA. The department alleged non-compliance with Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006 and failure to submit necessary documents. Show cause notices were issued to deny the refund claim, leading to two appeals - one by the department and the other by the SEZ unit.2. The department's argument was based on the SEZ unit's failure to follow the prescribed procedure and submit required documents. The refund for a specific period was sanctioned and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the department's appeal. The SEZ unit's refund claim for another period was rejected, prompting their appeal against the rejection.3. The SEZ unit's representative argued that the supplier was aware of their SEZ status and should not have collected duty. They were willing to provide necessary documents to prove duty payment on the procured HSD. On the other hand, the department contended that the SEZ unit was not eligible for a refund as they claimed a rebate, which, according to Rule 30, was applicable to DTA suppliers.4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to remand both appeals to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The main reason for the rejection of the refund was the lack of necessary documents, which the SEZ unit expressed willingness to provide. The Tribunal left all issues open for reconsideration and directed the adjudicating authority to review the refund claims afresh, setting aside the previous orders and allowing the appeals by way of remand.