Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sundaram Brake Linings Limited vs Chennai-Iii on 4 November, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.III
Excise Appeal No. 41622 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.109/2016 (CXA-I) dated 31.05.2016
passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai)
M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., ....Appellant
(SEZ), Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram-603 002.
Versus
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ... Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
With
2) Excise Appeal No. 42466 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.250/2016 (CXA-I) dated 31.10.2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai) M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., ....Appellant (SEZ), Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram-603 002.
Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ... Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2With
3) Excise Appeal No. 40510 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.304/2016 (CXA-I) dated 30.12.2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai) M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., ....Appellant (SEZ), Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram-603 002.
Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ... Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
With
4) Excise Appeal No. 40716 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.441/2017 (CXA-II) dated 27.12.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai) M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., ....Appellant (SEZ), Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram-603 002.
Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ... Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
3With
5) Excise Appeal No. 41936 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.176/2018 (CTA-II) dated 28.04.2018 passed by Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai) M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., ....Appellant (SEZ), Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram-603 002.
Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ... Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
And
6) Excise Appeal No. 41937 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.175/2018 (CTA-II) dated 28.04.2018 passed by Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai) M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., ....Appellant (SEZ), Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram-603 002.
Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, ... Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
APPEARANCE:
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 4 FINAL ORDER NOs.41238-41243/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 09.05.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 04.11.2025 Per: Shri P. Dinesha These Appeals are filed against different Orders-in- Appeal but considering the fact that a common issue is involved, all the Appeals are bunched together for common disposal. The only issue in all these Appeals pertains to the claim of refund of excise duty paid by the Appellant for supplies to its SEZ units, during different periods; and for convenience the table given by the Appellant in the synopsis is reproduced herein below:-
Sl.No. Appeal No. O.I.A No. Period of Refund Rs.
dispute
1. E/41622/2016 109/2016 (CXA-I) dt. Feb 2013 to Sep 60,46,071 31.05.2016 2014
2. E/42466/2016 250/2016 (CXA-I) dt. Jan 2015 to Jun 8,34,657 31.10.2016 2015
3. E/40510/2017 304/2016 (CXA-I) dt. Jul 2015 to Mar 6,79,101 30.12.2016 2016
4. E/40716/2018 441/2017 (CXA-II) dt. Apr 2016 to Sep 6,23,469 27.12.2017 2016
5. E/41936/2018 176/2018 (CTA-II) dt. Oct 2016 to 4,62,862 28.04.2018 Mar 2017
6. E/41937/2018 175/2018 (CTA-II) dt. Apr 2017 to Jun 2,15,342 28.04.2018 2017 Total 88,61,502
2. Both the Lower Authorities have rejected the refund claim as, according to them, such export benefits have to be 5 claimed from the Development Commissioner (DC) or Regional Authority (RA). Relevant observations at para 7 of the impugned order is extracted herein below for the convenience:-
7. According to the provisions contained in Chapter 8 (Deemed Exports) of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, as notified in Handbook of Procedure (Vol.I) by the Director General of Foreign Trade, in respect of supplies under paragraph 8.2(b) of FTP (Foreign Trade Policy) and DFIA (Duty Free Import Authorization), deemed export benefits have to be claimed from DC (Development Commissioner) or RA (Regional Authority) concerned. Advance Authorisation and DFIA shall be claimed from the concerned RA. In view of the above reasons, in the instant case as the Appellant belongs to SEZ Unit, I uphold the decision taken by the Respondent in the impugned order.
3. We have heard Shri M. Kannan, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue and perused the documents placed on record; upon hearing both sides the only issue that arises for our consideration is "whether the denial of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in order".
4. Chapter 8 which is heavy relied upon by both the Lower Authorities talks of „Deemed Exports‟; para 8.2 (b) refers to supply of goods to EOU/STP/EHTP/BTP and interestingly, „SEZ‟ is not figuring therein, at para 6 8.2 (b). It was thus the case of the Appellant that the conclusion drawn by the Lower Authorities in rejecting the claim of the Appellant by treating the supply by the appellant to its SEZ as a deemed export, is fallacious. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of Hon‟ble High Court in the case of M/s. Tiger Steel Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [(2025) 26 Centax 125 (Bom.)] wherein, the Hon‟ble High Court after referring to the Departmental Circular No. 1001/8/2015-C.X.8, dated 28.04.2015, has held as under:-
6. After having considered the rival contentions and by consent of the parties, in our view since the orders under challenge were passed prior to 2015, the original adjudicating and the appellate authorities did not have the benefit of the circular dated 28 April 2015, wherein it is clarified that, rebate of duty on goods cleared from Domestic Tariff Area to SEZ would be treated as export for the purposes of Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules.
Therefore, in the interest of justice and by consent of both the parties we remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority to decide the issue afresh after considering the Circular dated 28 April 2015 and all the decisions which the parties wishes to rely upon.
From the above, the Hon‟be High Court has clearly held that the rebate of duty on goods cleared from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to SEZ would be treated as export for the purposes of Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules, 7 which in fact is also the spirit of C.B.E. & C. Circular No.1001/8/2015-C.X.8, dated 28.04.2015.
5. We agree with the contentions of the Ld. Advocate that both the Lower Authorities have erred in ignoring the above Circular which is binding on them. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot sustain and hence, the same is set aside. In the light of the decision of Bombay High Court (supra) we deem it appropriate, by following the said decision, to remand the matter to the file of Original Authority to decide the issue afresh after considering the above Circular and other judicial pronouncements that may be relied upon by the Appellant. All the contentions are left open.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in open court on 04.11.2025) sd/- sd/-
(M. AJIT KUMAR) (P. DINESHA) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) vl