TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise, Kalyan-IV Division. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed refund claims of duty paid on goods cleared to SEZ unit. They had cleared goods to SEZ unit without executing the required UT-I/Bond with the proper authority, hence, they were directed to pay the Central Excise Duty along with the interest, as the goods were neither cleared on payment of duty nor under the UT-I/Bond. Accordingly, the applicants vide letter dated 17-3-2008, informed that they have made payment of duty along with interest on the goods cleared to SEZ units. For the purpose of obtaining rebate/refund of duty in respect of goods cleared to SEZ, it was mandatory to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 18 of Central Excise R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. Tribunal's decision in the case of Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 375 (T). It is submitted that the ratio of this decision is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this revision application. At para 11 of the decision the Hon. Tribunal stated the subject matter of the appeal before it : "In the present case, the respondent claimed refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." While in the present revision application of the applicant, the issue involved is the refund of duty paid on goods exported to SEZ unit under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly it is submitted that Commissioner (A) manifestly erred in applying the said decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the original authority mainly on the ground that the clearance to SEZ cannot be treated equivalent to export to other countries and that there is no provision of allowing rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Orders-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed revision applications on the grounds stated in para 4 above. 8. Government notes that applicant has cited Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006 and Board's Circular 6/2010-Cus., dated 19-3-2010, and contended that rebate is admissible to them. 8.1 The relevant provision of Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006 reads as under : "1 ..................... 2. ....................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. Now the procedure for procurements of goods from Domestic Tariff Area to a SEZ Developer or a unit would be governed by the provisions of Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, and the movement of goods from the place of manufacture to the SEZ shall be (i) on the basis of ARE 1 (in cases where export entitlements are not availed); (ii) on the basis of ARE 1 and Bill of Export (in cases where export entitlements are availed) and against a general Bond or Letter of Undertaking, specified in Annexure-I and Annexure-II, under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E.(N. T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended, and furnished by the DTA supplier to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. In the event of non-receipt of proof of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty and interest relating thereto, would lie with the supplier in DTA, in addition to any other liability under any law in force." Further, relevant para of Board's Circular 6/2010-Cus., dated 19-3-2010 reads as under : "1 .................. 2. A view has been put forth that rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 is admissible only when the goods are exported out of India and not when supplies are made to SEZ. 3. The matter has been examined. The Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006 was issued after considering all the relevant points and it was clarified that rebate under Rule 18 is admissible when the supplies are made from DTA to....