9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case are that the appellant had imported Sappan Billets (Caesalpinea sappan) through Cochin Port and filed Bill of Entry Nos.6454106 dated 23.08.2016 and 7508160 dated 18.11.2016 for its clearance. Thereafter, on sale of the goods, the appellant filed a refund application seeking refund of Rs. 57,681/- as 4% additional duty as per Notification No.102/2007-C against both the Bills of Entry. Thereafter, a SCN was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground of violation of the Condition of the said Notification. After following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2018 rejected the refund claim of Rs. 57,681/- on the ground that the appellant has not complied wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vs CC reported in 2014 (299) ELT 455 (Tri. Ahm.) wherein it was held that mere cutting of large pieces into small pieces for trade will not amount to manufacture or process to deny the benefit of 4% additional duty. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Ahmedabad in the case of CC Vs Variety Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (302) ELT 519 (Gujarat) wherein also it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that rejection of refund on the ground that goods sold were having different identity under different tariff entry then the goods imported, by cutting of round log into smaller pieces by sawing no new product came into existence and the identity of the article did not undergo any fundamental change and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e processed and hence the assessee is not entitled for said refund under Notification No.102/2007. He also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Proflex System Vs CC, 2017 (353) ELT 142 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017(355) ELT 883. The learned DR also cited the Circular No.15/2010 dated 19.06.2010. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant has imported the Sappan Billets (Caesalpinea sappan) and has cut them into small pieces for the purpose of marketing locally but the said cutting into smaller pieces does not change the identity of the goods and further no new product has come into existence. The ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rictest terms does not permit such a view to be taken. That apart, the materials on record clearly shows that for purpose of transit of logs, the same necessarily had be reduced in size due to conditions imposed by the State for transport/movement of timber. The said fact itself would belie the stand of the Revenue. We, therefore, take the view that a mere conversion of imported logs in the Sawn Timber without loss of identity of the original product would not deprive the importer of the benefit of the exemption notification. 3. The appeals of the Revenue, therefore, are dismissed. The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are affirmed. 6.2. Further, I find it very strange to note that the same Commissioner in another case has held i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
