Ramesh Nair ORDER
Ramesh Nair, Member (J)
1. M/s. Suchi Fastners (P) Ltd., Special Economic Zone, Sachin Surat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') has filed this Appeal against the impugned O-I-A No. 100-AGU-ADT-VAD-2017-18 dated 12-09-2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara, wherein SAD refund of Rs. 54,733/- filed on 11-10-2010 and BCD Refund claim of Rs. 2,79,924/- filed on 12-11-2011 have been rejected.
2. The brief facts of case are that Appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of "Stainless Steel Washers "having manufacturing unit in Special Economic Zone, Sachin. Stainless Steel Scrap of CTH 72042190 was generated during the process of manufacture, which was cleared from SEZ unit to DTA on payment of customs duty in terms of Section 30 of the SEZ Act 2005. Appellant claims to have paid "5% BCD instead of 2.5% BCD" in respect of total 10 Bills of Entry and claims to have paid excess amount of Rs. 2,79,924/- towards Basic Customs duty (BCD) and claims to have paid 4% SAD in excess in Bill of Entry No. DTA/673/2010-11 dated 27-07-2010. Refund claims of excess BCD of Rs. 2,79,924/- and SAD of Rs. 54,733/- were filed, which were rejected by O-I-O/O-I-A earlier on the grounds that there were no provisions and powers for allowing Refund under SEZ Act/Rules. Hence, Appellant have challenged such Order sup to CESTAT twice. This CESTAT vide order No. A/11387-11388/2015 dated 05-10-2015, remanded matters to proper officer of Customs at SEZ, Sachin, Surat with directions to examine Refund claims under Customs Act 1962, following decision of Gujarat High Court in Anita Exports vs. UOI-MANU/GJ/1398/2014 : 2015 (320) ELT-743 (Guj.), and to dispose of claims on merits as per the law. Revenue rejected refunds again by second O-I-O/O-I-A on similar grounds. In the meanwhile, amendment were made in SEZ Rules on 05.08.2016, by inserting new Rule 47(5) in SEZ Rules 2006, empowering authority under Central Excise and Customs to deal with refund cases pertaining to the SEZ units. This CESTAT vide Order No. A/10714-10715/2016 dated 16-08-2016, again remanded the matter to original authority to consider Refund claims afresh. O-I-O rejected Refund claims and in an Appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected Refunds by the impugned O-I-A No. 100-AGU-ADT-VAD-2017-18 dated 12-09-2018 for two reasons i.e. (a) Appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim that imported goods were of the description as mentioned in the Notification and (b) holding that no provisions exist in the SEZ Act for grant of refund. SAD Refund claim of Rs. 54,733/, has been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) holding that SAD Refund is eligible only when the goods are imported for Re-Sale. Hence, Appellant is before this Hon'ble CESTAT in 3rd round of litigation for the same refund claims. Appeal by Appellant was taken up for regular virtual hearing on 21-01-2021 for final disposal of the Appeal.
3. Shri P.P. Jadeja, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, while reiterating grounds of Appeal and submissions in synopsis and made during hearing has stated that O-I-A dated 12-09-2018 has committed error in rejecting refund claims. He argued that the documentary evidences on record have established that "Stainless Steel Scrap" cleared by Appellant from SEZ unit to DTA was for the purpose of melting only and BCD exemption claimed under Entry No. 202 in Notification No. 21/2002-Customs, which had provided duty @ 2.5% ........