Page 226 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

272 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(iii) the duplicate copy of the invoice with the endorsement of the
Authorized Officer shall be forwarded to the supplier in the
Domestic Tariff Area for claiming Replenishment Licence
from the Development Commissioner of the Special Economic
Zone.”
7. He would assert that there is no exemption for supply of goods to
SEZ units just as there is no exemption notification for export of goods. In fact,
SEZ is treated, for all purposes, as a place outside India and it is for this reason
goods are procured by filing [the] ARE-1 by the supplier and a Bill of Export be-
fore the goods enter the SEZ unit. Therefore, the supplies to SEZ developer/unit
are at par with the exports. The mechanism provided for such supply in the SEZ
Rules only provides for supply against a bond or legal undertaking after follow-
ing the process and procedure indicated therein. Any SEZ unit claiming a refund
is like an overseas buyer of exported goods claiming refund of Central Excise
duty for which there is no legal provision. He would submit that the assessee has
not made out a case to show under what law they have claimed refund of the
excise duty. He would further urge that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the
case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. [2004-TIOL-78-(S.C.)-CUS] = [2004 (172) E.L.T.
145 (S.C.)] and Flock India Pvt. Ltd. [(2000) 6 SCC 650] = [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285
(S.C.)], clearly held that no refund can be claimed in respect of the goods which
have already been assessed unless the assessment itself has been challenged. In
this case there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the assessment of the goods by
the supplier M/s. HBLPSL, Hyderabad to the appellant has been challenged ei-
ther by M/s. HBLPSL themselves or by the appellant. In view of the above, the
question of refund does not arise.
8. He further submits that as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dilip Kumar & Co. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007) when the ap-
pellant is claiming an exemption notification, it must be strictly construed and
any benefit of doubt must be given to the revenue and decided against the as-
sessee. In this particular case, the SEZ Rules do not provide for refund of duty in
respect of goods which have been procured from DTA at all and neither does the
Central Excise Act or Rules provided for such refund. The exemption which is
available under SEZ Rules is only through the process of bond/legal undertak-
ing. Therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed both on merits and on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
9. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the rec-
ords. The appellant, a developer of SEZ unit has procured goods from a DTA
unit which he could have also procured without payment of excise duty if he had
followed the appropriate procedure prescribed under SEZ Act and Rules. SEZ
area is treated for all practical purposes as a place outside India. For this reason,
goods which are imported into SEZ are not subject to customs duties. Goods
from DTA which are supplied to SEZ units are treated at par with exports. In
fact, documents such as ARE-1 and Bill of Export which are usually filed in case
of exports are also filed in case of SEZ units. In case of actual exports, Central
Excise Act provides for two options viz., (1) Export under Bond under Rule 19;
and (2) Export under claim for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,
2002. The SEZ Rules, however, have only provided a mechanism for clearance of
goods under bond. I find that there is no mechanism under SEZ Rules for claim-
ing rebate/refund on goods procured from the DTA.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  242