Court Remands SEZ Export Dispute Back to Authorities for Fresh Adjudication Post-CBEC Circular.


29 November 2024 Central Excise >> Tax Laws  

The case of M/s. Tiger Steel Engineer (India) Private Limited, Navi Mumbai v/s Union of India, through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Mumbai & Others concerns whether supplies made from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to Special Economic Zones (SEZ) should be treated as "exports" for the purpose of claiming refunds under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioners in the three cases are challenging various orders relating to the denial of such refunds.

In Writ Petition No. 2469 of 2010, the petitioner contested an order in appeal and an Order-in-Original denying a refund under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 9075 of 2010, the petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original and an order in appeal regarding the same issue. In Central Excise Appeal No. 140 of 2010, the appellant challenged the Tribunal's order on this matter.

 
 

The primary issue was whether supplies from DTA to SEZ can be considered as exports for the purposes of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) had issued a Circular on 28 April 2015, clarifying that supplies treated as "exports" under the SEZ Act should also be treated as "exports" under the Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules for the purpose of claiming refunds. This clarification addressed concerns regarding the eligibility of such supplies for benefits under these rules.

The Court observed that the original adjudicating and appellate authorities had passed their orders before the Circular was issued, and thus did not have the benefit of this clarification. The Court, with the consent of both parties, decided to remand the matters to the respective authorities for fresh adjudication, taking into account the 2015 Circular and all relevant case laws.

The Court issued the following orders:
Writ Petition No. 2469 of 2010: The petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the concerned authorities for fresh adjudication, considering the 2015 Circular.
Writ Petition No. 9075 of 2010: Similarly, the petition was allowed, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Central Excise Appeal No. 140 of 2010: The Tribunal's order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for re-hearing.
The Court directed the concerned authorities to pass reasoned orders after providing an opportunity for personal hearing, leaving all parties’ contentions open for consideration.


SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES ACT, 2005    

Customs Act, 1962