2018 (4) TMI 1679 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - contention of the appellant is that there is no requirement of submitting CST Form-C to the department for claiming the refund - Held that - The contention of the appellant insofar as the appellant is required to submit evidence to substantiate that the imported goods were sold on payment of sales tax or VAT as the case maybe cannot be accepted. The Ld. Counsel strongly relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Comm. of Customs (EP), Mumbai 2015 (4) TMI 450 - CESTAT MUMBAI . In this case, the appellant submitted the copy of the agreement to substantiate the fulfillment of the condition of the notification. They have also relied upon the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s. Kunal International Exports 2017 (9) TMI 327 - CESTAT KOLKATA . It is found that the importer had submitted CST return to the department. Hence, the said order/decisions are not applicable to the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of additional duty of Customs for import of cotton waste from Bangladesh.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Siliguri, regarding the refund of additional duty of Customs paid for importing cotton waste from Bangladesh. The Revenue also filed cross objections. The main issue involved in these appeals was the refund of the additional duty of Customs paid by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, leading to the appellants filing the present appeals.

The adjudicating authority verified the refund claim applications as per relevant Board Circulars and a notification issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The notification exempted imported goods from additional duty of Customs for subsequent sale subject to specific conditions. One such condition was the payment of appropriate sales tax or value-added tax on the sale of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the absence of evidence, such as Form C or VAT returns, to prove the payment of sales tax or VAT by the appellants. The appellant contended that submitting CST Form-C was not necessary for claiming the refund.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention, emphasizing the requirement for evidence to demonstrate payment of sales tax or VAT on the sale of imported goods. The Tribunal cited previous decisions where submission of relevant documents, like CST returns, was crucial to fulfill the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, unlike in the cases referenced. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals and disposing of the cross-objections.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders, as the appellants did not adequately substantiate the fulfillment of conditions for the refund of additional duty of Customs. The appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objections were disposed of during the proceedings held on 10-4-2018.