APPOLLO TYRES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent whereby claim for refund of Service Tax paid in relation to goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner was rejected, for the reason that the 2nd respondent is not having jurisdiction to entertain such claims, since the exporter is M/s. Appollo Tyres Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana and the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under whom the exporter's office falls is the authority having jurisdiction. According to the 2nd respondent his office has no jurisdiction to sanction the claim as per the provisions contained in the relevant notification. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P1 is the relevant notification and it provides that the claim for exemption by the manufacturer-exporter shall be submitted before the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse. It is contended that in the case at hand the entire goods exported were manufactured at the factory of the petitioner at Perambra in Thrissur District, and the export was made totally through Cochin Port. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce documents to prove that the goods in question was manufactured at the Perambra unit of the petitioner and it was exported through Cochin Port.

(2.) Learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioner has not produced any document in support of his claim in order to prove that the 2nd respondent has got jurisdiction with respect to the claims. But it is noticed that, before rejecting the claim the 2nd respondent had never made any demand to the petitioner to produce any records in order to verify whether the claim is coming within his jurisdiction.

(3.) Under the above circumstances Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed and I do so. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on taking back the refund claims and to consider and dispose of the same, on the petitioner producing documentary evidence to prove that the goods exported, with respect to which the claim for refund is made, was manufactured totally at their factory at Perambra in Thrissur District. If the petitioner approaches the 2nd respondent with a representation in this regard producing supporting documents, the claim shall be considered on merits and disposed of as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation.