9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 381 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in few Bills of Entry, the description of the goods was Bitumen grade 60/70 whereas in the sales invoice, it was shown as Bitumen VG-30 - whether the respondents are eligible to refund of 4% SAD paid at the time of import against seven Bills Entry for total quantity of 1800.032 MTs? - Held that - there is no difference in Bitumen grade 60/70 and Bitumen VG-30 - both penetration grade and viscosity grade declared for the imported goods indicate same product imported by them, and that the product is internationally known by its penetration grade whereas BIS prescribes the same with viscosity grade. The condition laid down under N/N. 102/2007-Cus, dated 14.9.2007 has been complied with by the Respondent and accordingly they are eligible to refund claim of 4% of SAD paid at the time of import of Bitumen grade 60/70 and subsequently sold as such against 96 invoices and balance shown as Bitumen VG-30 against 13 invoices. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for a refund of 4% SAD paid at the time of import against multiple Bills of Entry. Analysis: The appeal in question was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Kandla. The central issue was whether the respondents were entitled to a refund of 4% SAD paid during import against seven Bills of Entry totaling 1800.032 MTs. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies in the description of goods between the Bills of Entry and sales invoices but concluded that the variation did not impact the eligibility for a refund. The Commissioner analyzed the difference between "Bitumen grade 60/70" and "Bitumen VG-30" and found them to be essentially the same, citing industry standards and specifications. The Commissioner detailed the evolution of grading standards for bitumen, emphasizing that both penetration grade and viscosity grade denoted the same product. The Commissioner upheld the eligibility for the refund, stating that the variation in descriptions did not warrant rejection of the claim. Upon reviewing the records and the Commissioner's findings, the Appellate Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's analysis. The Tribunal highlighted the explanations provided regarding the equivalence of "Bitumen grade 60/70" and "Bitumen VG-30" based on viscosity and penetration grades. The Tribunal referenced information from reputable sources to support the argument that both grades indicated the same product. The Tribunal also noted that the other issues raised by the Revenue were adequately addressed in the Commissioner's order, finding no discrepancies in the reasoning provided. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed that the conditions specified under Notification No.102/2007-Cus had been met by the Respondent, making them eligible for the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the Cross-Objection. In conclusion, the judgment centered on the eligibility of the respondents for a refund of 4% SAD paid during import, focusing on the discrepancy in the description of goods between Bills of Entry and sales invoices. The analysis delved into the technical aspects of bitumen grading standards to establish the equivalence of the mentioned grades. The decision ultimately favored the Respondent, emphasizing compliance with relevant regulations and industry practices to support the refund claim.
|
