2010 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Re-import SAD liability - Notification No. 94/96, dated 16-12-1996 is a combined exemption notification in respect of basic customs duty, additional duty of customs and special duty of customs - goods are covered under Serial No. 1(d) as these were originally exported under bond without payment of Central Excise duty Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on re-imported goods under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants re-importing goods that were earlier exported for an international exhibition without payment of duty under bond. Upon re-importation, the appellants paid Customs duty equal to the Central Excise duty leviable on the goods and also paid the Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs under protest. The appellants claimed a refund of the SAD, contending it was not payable under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The refund claim was rejected by authorities, leading to the appeal.

The appellants argued that they sold the imported goods and should be exempt from paying SAD under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. They cited various case laws to support their claim. The Deputy General Manager representing the appellants emphasized that the exemption under the notification covers basic customs duty, additional duty of customs, and special additional duty of customs, hence they should be entitled to a refund of the SAD paid under protest.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and case laws cited, found that Notification No. 94/96-Cus. exempts re-imported goods from duties exceeding the amount indicated in the notification. The goods in question fell under the exemption category as they were originally exported without payment of Central Excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the notification provides exemption from basic customs duty, additional duty of customs, and special duty of customs. It was established that the SAD was not required to be paid by the appellants as all customs duties were exempted under the notification, beyond the amount of central excise duty paid by them. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeal and granting them the refund of the SAD.

In conclusion, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. and the consistent view taken in earlier decisions by various Benches of the Tribunal, affirming that the appellants were entitled to the refund of the SAD paid under protest.