Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Gayatri Timber Pvt Ltd Versus CC, Visakhapatnam

2016 (2) TMI 97 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Refund claim of 4% Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) - Notification No.102/2007 - imported timber logs were sold as “cut sizes” - refund was rejected in regard to timber logs sold as “cut sizes” on the ground that there was no correlation with the goods imported and the goods sold - Held that:- the order passed by the Tribunal which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is binding even though the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In obedience to judicial discipline fol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.S. The appellants are engaged in importing timber logs and its subsequent sale. The appellants filed refund claim of 4% Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007 for the goods imported and which was subsequently sold by them. After verification and scrutiny of documents, the Department entertained a view that the appellants are not entitled to part of the refund for the reason that the imported timber logs were sold as cut sizes , which cannot be correl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the appellants had satisfied all the requirements to be eligible for refund of SAD in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007. The sole reason for rejection of claim is based on CBEC's clarification issued vide Circular No.15/2010-Cus. Dt. 29/06/2010. It is stipulated in this circular that the refund is admissible only if the goods imported are sold without carryin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the decision in M/s. Agarwalla Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Kandla & M/s. Variety Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Kandla [2010-TIOL-1378-CESTAT-AHM]. 3. Against this, the learned AR Shri Venkatesh reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellant had imported timber logs which fall under Customs Tariff heading 44.03 whereas the goods sold after sawing and cutting would fall under Customs Tariff heading 44.07. The identity of the goods imported are completely changed by su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he logs were sold as such whereas some logs were cut into sizes. It is the case of appellant that the timber logs were cut and sawn only for the purpose of transportation and that it did not change the nature of the goods imported. The question is whether mere cutting and sawing of the goods for facilitating transportation would render the goods ineligible for refund of SAD. This issue has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Agarwalla Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Kandla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version