TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit. The Government of India vide Notification No. 66/2008 dated 10.05.2008 has imposed export duty on iron and steel products when exported out of India. It is worth mentioning here that Section 2(m) of SEZ Act, 2005 clearly stipulates that supply of goods from DTA unit to SEZ unit will amount to export. Thus, the respondent-assessee SEZ paid export duty on all supplies of iron and steel products as per the rates prescribed in the Notification No. 66/2008 dated 10.05.2008 "under protest". 2. On the issue of payment of export duty on the iron and steel products supplied to SEZ in India, the Notification No. 66/2008 dated 10.05.2008 was challenged vide a civil application before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-000APP-28to31-18-19 dated 03.10.2018 has allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by setting aside the impugned order of Dy. Commissioner and remanded back the matter to the lower authority to process the refund claims on merits by following legal provisions and pronouncements of the High Court on the issue. In response to the above order of Commissioner (Appeals), the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 56/DC/RD/18-19 dated 17.01.2019 has sanctioned the refund claims holding that the refund have been filed within proper time limit as prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and respondent-assessee has complied with the provisions of unjust-enrichment. 4. The department challenged the order of the Dy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No. 5698/2010 based on the office report wherein the date was wrongly mentioned as 06.04.2010 instead of 06.04.2009. Factually, the date 06.04.2009 is the date of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP (Civil) CC No. 3881/2009. The department is of the view that there might be change in the decision of the Supreme Court if the correct facts were produced before the Apex Court. Accordingly, the department has filed a Review Petition once again wherein it is prayed to modify the order dated 12.07.2010 of the apex court and passed any other order as may deemed fit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.02.2020 has allowed the departmental Review Petition No. 1848/2010 in SLP (C) No. 19498/2010 and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2020 whereby the original SLP No.19498/2010 filed by the department has been restored and pending for final decision. 5. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee has argued that in the orders-in-original dated 26.09.2017, the Adjudicating Authority, Dy. Commissioner had categorically held that no export duty was payable and that such duty is liable to be rejected and this finding of the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner has never been challenged by the department and attained finality. It has further been mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court might have restored the ordinal SLP No. 19498/2010 vide its order dated 10.02.2020 however, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not stayed the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Original dated 26.9.2017. The respondent submitted that in the said earlier order dated 26.9.2017, the Deputy Commissioner specifically held that the Respondent was entitled to refund of the export duty in view of the decision in the case of Essar Steel Limited. The said specific finding of the Respondent's entitlement was not questioned/challenged by the Department by filing any appeal and thus the issues attained finality. The respondent submitted that Department cannot by way of the present appeal question the sanctioning of refund to the respondent on the ground that the Department's review petition against the decision of the Supreme Court filed in the year 2010 is still pending. I find that the respondents have furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to assess the Bill of Entry either on basis of aforesaid judgment or give a decision with cogent reasons by distinguishing same - Article 226) of Constitution of India. The appellant department in their appeal has contended that as the matter at this juncture is under litigation at the level of Apex court and sub-judice, therefore issuance of refund sanction order in favor of claimant by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is not legal. correct & proper and needs to be quashed and set aside. But in the case laws cited by the respondents. It is observed that the Hon'ble High Court at Patna and Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta have clearly held in their judgments that mere fact of filing review petition, not a ground for ....