Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (7) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arge pieces into small pieces for the purpose of trade will not amount to manufacture or processing in order to deny the benefit of 4% additional duty. The Division Bench of the Tribunal has considered the conditions of the Notification as well as the Circular issued by the Board and has also considered other decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that mere cutting of the imported goods into small pieces will not amount to manufacture and refund of additional duty under N/N.102/2007 cannot be denied. The impugned order holding that the appellant has violated the Condition D of the N/N. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 20016 of 2020 - Final Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has produced certain decisions squarely covering the issue in favour of the appellant but the learned Commissioner without considering those decisions has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the Condition D of the Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. He further read out the Conditions of the Notification No.102/2007 and submitted that there is no condition re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Lumbers Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (360) ELT 790 (SC). Learned Counsel also submitted that the same very issue involved in the present case was considered by the present Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Original No. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-17-2015-16 dated 08.06.2015 wherein the present Commissioner has held that by cutting of logs into smaller pieces by sawing, no new product came into existence, hence the identity of the goods does not undergo any fundamental change and in order to support his findings, the learned Commissioner relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CC Vs Variety Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e pieces into small pieces for the purpose of trade will not amount to manufacture or processing in order to deny the benefit of 4% additional duty. The Division Bench of the Tribunal has considered the conditions of the Notification as well as the Circular issued by the Board and has also considered other decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that mere cutting of the imported goods into small pieces will not amount to manufacture and refund of additional duty under Notification No.102/2007 cannot be denied. Further, I find that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CC Vs Variety Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also considered the identical issue. 6.1. Further, I find that the decision of the Hon ble Ahmedabad High Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Further, I find that the decision in the case of Seven Hills Solvent Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Respondent is not applicable in the facts and the circumstances of this case because in that case, the assessee has undertaken the manufacturing and processes and new product emerged which was sold separately and therefore the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the importer has undertaken a manufacturing process and hence not entitled to the benefit of refund under Notification No.102/2007. Simultaneously the other decisions relied upon by the Revenue in the case of Proflex System (supra) is also not applicable in the present case because the facts are entirely different. Further, the decision relied upon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates