TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd., Thane is the respondent in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had after supplying the goods to M/s. Bicon Ltd., Bangalore, a SEZ Unit filed two claims for fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback. Both the claims filed by the respondents were rejected vide jurisdictional authority vide letters dated 21-5-2010, on the ground that they have not furnished proof of payment in freely convertible foreign currency of supply of goods to SEZ, and failed to produce the disclaimer certificate from the SEZ Unit or Developer, apart from rejection on the grounds of time limitation. 3. On being aggrieved of above the applicant filed appeals before Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the supplies made by M/s. Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. were to M/s. Biocon Ltd., Bangalore an SEZ Unit and was not to an SEZ developer. Hence the condition stipulated at Para 10(ix) of Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-7-2003 has not been fulfilled and therefore drawback is not admissible in the present case. 5. A Show-Cause-Notice dated 20-1-2012 was issued to the respondents herein to make their counter submissions and to state whether they require personal hearing as per requirements of procedure of natural justice. M/s. Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd., the respondents herein vide their reply dated 31-1-2012 has made the following cross-objections :- 5.1 All the issues i.e. proof of receipt of convertible curr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d hereinabove, the respondents wish to state and submit that applicant has erred in stating that the facility of reimbursement of duty in lieu of drawback is admissible even if payment is made in Indian currency against supply to Special Economic Zone Developers only and that in the present case, the respondent M/s. Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. had made supplies to M/s. Biocon Ltd., Bangalore, which was an SEZ Unit and not SEZ Developer and hence the respondents had not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Para 10(ix) of Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-7-2003 and hence drawback was not admissible in this case. The applicant has utterly misplaced his argument in concluding that Para 10(ix) of 53/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court of India Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Gujarat v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. 6. Personal hearing in this case was scheduled for 14-8-2012. Shri Neerav Mainkar Advocate for the respondent attended the same and reiterated the facts/submissions as made so far in the matter. No body attended the hearing on behalf of the department. 7. Government has gone through records of the case and also perused impugned orders. 8. Government notes that the respondent herein as a DTA manufacturing Unit supplied the impugned goods to M/s. Bicon Ltd., Bangalore a SEZ Unit as per relevant ARE-1s/Bills of Exports of dates in Nov. 2006 and June 2007. The respondent then filed application for fixation of brand rate of drawback under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpreting the same as per their own version and citing support of above-mentioned case laws and other SEZ procedural regulations. 8.1 In such a situation Government think it proper to peruse the above said statutory provisions which are as under :- 8.2 "Rule. 30. Procedure for procurements from the Domestic Tariff Area" ---------------------- ---------------------- "(8) Drawback or Duty Entitlement Pass Book credit against supply of goods by Domestic Tariff Area supplier shall be admissible provided payments for the supply are made from the Foreign Currency Account of the Unit : PROVIDED that the reimbursement of duty in lieu of drawback or Duty Entitlement Pass Book credit against supply of goods by Domestic Tariff Area....