2016 (3) TMI 843 - AT - Customs

Admissibility of refund claim - Special Addittional Duty (SAD) of Customs - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Appellants made the payment of SAD which is in lieu of VAT after the sale of the imported goods in the domestic tariff area - Refund claim rejected on non-submission of original papers with the customs and could be a chances of misuse of those original papers - Held that - in this special situation Customs must accept the documents produced as a compliance of the conditions mentioned in para 2(e) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for sanctioning the refund of SAD to the appellant. The decision of CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin 2013 (11) TMI 1042 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and in the case of Mridul Timbers and others Vs. CC, Cochin 2015 (3) TMI 1074 - CESTAT BENGLALORE support the stand of the appellant-importer. Also the refund claim has been filed within time which is supported by CESTAT, Delhi s decision in the case of CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi Vs. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (1) TMI 121 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Therefore, refund claim is admissible. - Decided in favour of appellant with some condition

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 for imported wooden logs sold in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).

Analysis:
The matter revolves around the admissibility of a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. The importers, appellants in this case, argue that they are entitled to the refund as they paid SAD in lieu of VAT when selling imported wooden logs in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The lower adjudicating authorities rejected their refund application citing non-submission of required documents within one year from duty payment. The appellants, M/s. Century Timbers, filed an appeal against this rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading the importers to approach the Tribunal.

The appellants assert that they filed the refund application within the one-year timeframe, complying with the notification's requirements. They claim to have submitted all necessary documents mentioned in the original order, including a photocopy of the duty paid challan attested by the bank. They argue that their buyers in the DTA cannot claim cenvat credit as they are not registered under Central Excise, citing relevant case laws to support their position.

The Revenue's representative argues that original documents must be submitted to prevent misuse and ensure the refund is not issued multiple times. They highlight the absence of original TR-6 challan and buyer certificates stating non-claim of cenvat credit on invoices issued by the importers in the DTA.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal finds that the appellants are entitled to the refund of SAD paid in lieu of VAT/sales tax upon providing proof of payment of VAT/sales tax post-sale in the DTA. The Tribunal rejects the Revenue's argument regarding the necessity of original documents, accepting the attested photocopy of the duty paid challan and the appellants' explanation regarding stamped invoices. The Tribunal emphasizes the special circumstances and the appellants' compliance with the notification's conditions.

The Tribunal allows the appeal, directing the appellants to submit the required documents along with an Indemnity Bond to safeguard against misuse of the original TR-6 challan. The original adjudicating authority is tasked with verifying the facts and sanctioning the refund within three months of the order, providing the appellants with an opportunity for a personal hearing and document submission.