9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary and April 2017 and cleared these under 5 Bills of Entry on payment of the assessed duty including Special Additional Duty (SAD) at 4%. After sale of the goods, the appellant filed claim for refund of the SAD paid of Rs. 2,40,449/- as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007. Thereafter, a showcause notice dt. 24/10/2017 was issued pointing out that as no VAT had been paid on sale of the goods, the claim is liable to be rejected. The Assistant Commissioner after following the due process rejected the refund claim on the ground that the Department had not accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case and has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. The original authority also cited the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Seiko Brushware India reported in 2015 (323) E.L.T. 641 (S.C) but the said decision was with regard to the Notification 34/1998-Cus. dated 13.06.1998 and the conditions were different in that Notification. Further that Notification has been rescinded by Notification No. 58/1998-Cus. dated 01.08.1998. He further submitted that the Notification which has been rescinded will not be applicable in the appellant's case and that too in the years 2016 and 2017 when the appellant imported the impugned goods. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the following decisions: a. CC (Prev.), Patna Vs. Katyal Metal Agencies - 2014 (306) E.L.T. 335 (Tri.-Kolkata) b. Gazal Overseas & others Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 767 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low the relevant para of the decision: "4. We have considered the contention of ld. DR and also perused the refund papers. Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14- 9-2007 as amended allowed refund of SAD subject to the condition that "the importer shall pay appropriate sales tax or VAT, as the case may be." In the present case, the appropriate sales tax or VAT being NIL the appellants cannot be said to have violated the said conditions of the said notification inasmuch as it cannot be said that they have not paid appropriate sales tax/VAT. In this regard, it is seen that vide Circular No. 6/2008, dated 28-4-2008 C.B.E. & C. in para 5.3 thereof clarified as under : "5.3 The exemption contained in the said notification envisages that the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals with consequential relief, if any." 6. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the present issue is no more res integra. By following the above decision, we are of the view that NIL rate of VAT in terms of the notification issued under Kerala Finance Act 2001 is to be considered as appropriate sales tax / VAT. Accordingly, we are of the view that the condition prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007 is satisfied and the appellant will be eligible for the refund of the SAD paid at the time of input. In view of the above findings, the impugned orders are set aside and all appeals are allowed with consequential relief. Miscellaneous applications are also disposed off." 7. Since the issue is squarely covered in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
