TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) has upheld the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 11/94,519/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only) on the ground that the claim filed after a lapse of one year from the date of purchase, However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of Rs. 23/36,069/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand and Sixty Nine only). The Department has filed the appeal against the sanctioning of the refund of Rs. 23/36,069/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand and Sixty Nine only) and the assessee has filed the appeal for rejection of the refund amount of Rs. 11,94/519/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only). Briefly the facts of the present case are tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../519/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only) being barred by limitation is correct but the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of the balance amount of Rs. 23/36,069/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand and Sixty Nine only). The Revenue has filed appeal against the allowing of the refund of Rs. 23/36/069/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand and Sixty Nine only) on the ground that assessee is a SEZ unit which is deemed to be a foreign territory for the purpose of trade operation and duties and tariff. The Revenue has also raised the ground that the SEZ Act is a Special Act of 2005 which provides the special procedures to be followed for exemption. Similarly SEZ Rules also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that the appellant, who had paid the Excise duty to the manufactuer, had the locus-standi, to file the application claiming the refund of duty. In the said case also, the claim was not filed by the manufacturer, Who discharged the duty on the goods, but by the buyer of the goods. Similar ratio has been followed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. vs, Commr. (K-11), Central Excise: 2016 (331) ELT 386 (All.). 6. In such situation, we note that the appellants do have locusstandi to prefer the claim for refund, if the same is not payable paid in excess, as authorized by law. 7.The next point is for jurisdiction to prefer to such claim. The lower authorities held that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions under SEZ Act, 2005, shall be with a jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1 962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994. We find that the said Notification makes the position amply clear on the question of jurisdiction of Central Excise officers to deal with the claim in the present matter. 9. In view of the above discussions and analysis, we set aside the impugned order and direct the original authority to examine the claim afresh on merit along with the connected documents and pass a fresh order on the claim made by the appellants, keeping in view the above observations, 4. Further this issue has already been held in favour of the assessee by the High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not from the date of invoice. He further submitted that the sale transaction completes only on payment of amounts indicated in the invoice issued by the supplier and in the instant case the supplier is M/S. HPCL and their invoices are dated from 09.03, 2014 to 31.03/2014 and the payment was made by assessee from 04.04.2014 to 21.04.2014 and hence the relevant date is the date of completion of transaction i.e. date of payment and not the date of invoice. He also submitted that as per. the Sale of Goods Act, the transaction is complete only on receiving the consideration and not before and the relevant date as per explanation (e) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 in the instant case is 04.042014 and there....