Page 221 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] ADANI POWER LTD. v. COMMR. OF C.T. - RANGAREDDY - GST, TELANGANA 267

such SEZ developer/unit not entitled to refund of Central Excise duty collected
from them by DTA unit - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 9, 10]
Refund - SEZ developer/unit procuring goods from DTA - Central Ex-
cise duty paid by DTA unit and collected from SEZ developer not refundable
to such SEZ developer when assessment of goods not challenged by them nor
by DTA unit - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 7, 11]
Appeals rejected
CASES CITED
Adani Power Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (364) E.L.T. 319 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Para 5, 10]
Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.) — Referred ........... [Para 11]
Collector v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. — 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) — Relied on .......................... [Para 7, 11]
Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company
— 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................................................. [Para 8, 10]
ITC Limited v. Commissioner — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) — Relied on ...................................... [Para 11]
Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (355) E.L.T. 446 (Del.) — Referred ............. [Para 11]
Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) — Relied on .......... [Para 7, 11]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate, for the
Appellant.
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - These three appeals are on the same issue and hence are being
disposed of together.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The appellant M/s. Adani
Power Ltd., Gujarat are co-developers of Multi-Product Special Economic Zone
in Gujarat. They procured stores, spares and consumables from M/s. HBL Power
Systems Ltd. (HBLPSL), Kothur Division, Hyderabad-II. Appropriate excise duty
was paid while clearing the goods to the appellant. It appeared to the appellant
that they are not liable to pay excise duty and hence they filed refund applica-
tions with the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer of the supplier which were
rejected. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority, who,
vide the impugned orders rejected their appeals. Hence, these appeals.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of the Spe-
cial Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, 2005, they are entitled to procure goods and ser-
vices required for undertaking the authorized operations without any duty or tax
liability in terms of Section 7 and Section 26 of the SEZ Act. The SEZ Act is a self-
contained code and provides for the mode and the mechanism for claiming ex-
emption from payment of different duties. Insofar the supply of goods from Do-
mestic Tariff Area (DTA) to SEZ unit is concerned, such supplies would be ex-
empt from payment of duty and such exemption has to be claimed by the devel-
oper/entrepreneur after executing an appropriate bond-cum-legal undertaking
as per Rule 22 of the SEZ Rules. They are also required to maintain proper ac-
counts, financial year-wise, which should indicate the value of the goods import-
ed or procured from DTA, their consumption, etc. On receipt of the goods at the
SEZ gate, in respect of which exemptions, drawback or concession are to be
claimed by the developer for undertaking authorized operations, a Bill of Export
is required to be filed by the unit/developer on behalf of the supplier which has
to be assessed by the authorized officer. Upon such assessment the goods are
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  237