Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 350 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007 - The rice bran which the assessee has imported has been processed to extract rice bran oil and the de-oiled rice bran is separately sold by the appellant - whether the rice bran and the extracted rice bran oil are one and same commodity to avail benefit of notification? Held that:- Notification No. 102/2007-CUS exempts goods falling within First Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, “when imported into India for subsequent sale” from the whole of Additional Duty of Customs leviable therein under Sub-Section (v) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act - As may be seen in para 2 (d) of the notification, the importer shall sell the imported goods after paying appropriate sales tax or VAT as the case may be. In this case the imported goods were not sold. Imported goods were processed into two different distinctive commodities and they were sold separately - The bran which is imported is a distinct commodity than the bran oil and the de-oiled bran and accordingly, the market prices of these three commodities are also different. This case has far more similarities to the case of the Proflex Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2014 (5) TMI 123 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] in which corrugated sheets were imported but they were sold as Proflex Roofs after making some changes. It is a well settled position that the exemption notification is an exception to the general rule and has to be strictly construed. The rice bran which the assessee has imported has been processed to extract rice bran oil and the de-oiled rice bran is separately sold by the appellant. Goods which were imported were not sold but were processed. Therefore, the exemption under Notification No.102/2007-CUS and the consequential SAD refund do not apply in the present case - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|