TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods that were imported by them ‘as such’ in the local market, nor payment of the said 4% SAD is in dispute - denial of refund of 4% SAD under N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 only on the ground of mis-match between the invoices, when all other conditions of the said notification is complied with and refund of the said amount has earlier been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority to them after due verification of the records. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/11145-11146,11149/2015 - A/13994-13996/2017 - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri Gunjan Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri J. Nagori, AR ORDER Per: Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en sold after cutting the same into smaller sizes/forms. The department was of the view that after cutting/sawing the timber logs into various smaller sizes it looses the original character and hence the sale of sawn timbers cannot be considered to be sales as such accordingly refund under the Notification 102/2007-Cus is inadmissible. The said issue has been finally decided by the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Variety Lumbers Pvt Ltd. - 2014 (302) ELT 519 (Guj.). He further submits that there was no dispute of the fact that 4% SAD has been paid at the time of import and the goods were after being cut into smaller sizes had sold on payment of local taxes. The mis-match between the sales invoices is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority after analysing the evidences sanctioned the refund. The dispute centres around the discrepancy in the invoices submitted with the refund authorities and issued to the customers as the same could not be reconciled Bill of Entry of wise. In explaining the reason for such discrepancy it is stated by the Appellant that the imported timber logs are sold as it is and some times it were cut/sawn to smaller sizes/shpaes and sold by them. Therefore, it becomes difficult to reconcile the invoices issued with the Bills of Entry wise. But, there is no variation in the total quantity imported and sold by the Appellant on which refund of 4% SAD claimed. From the analysis of the evidence on record, I find nowhere it has been brought in the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
