2018 (11) TMI 1099 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground that Part of raw cashew nuts was sold as such, cashew nut imported was subjected to processing and value addition which amounted to manufacture and the product had undergone change as to its identity - Held that - From the last Notification i.e., Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007, the words as such have been omitted. Issue is covered by the case of M/s. Kanam Latex Industries (P) Ltd. Anor. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin 2018 (6) TMI 651 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that Apart from the fact that it is well settled principle of law that no extraneous conditions can be introduced in the notification which has to be interpreted on its own wordings, we also take note of the fact that though the earlier notification required the imported goods to be sold as such , there is no such condition in the present Notification No. 102/07, which only used the expression subsequently sold and refund remains allowed. It is also very useful to note that both cashew nuts and cashew kernels are classified as cashew nuts under CTH 0801. At the same time, it is not the case of Revenue that S.T./VAT/CST is different for cashew nuts and cashew kernel. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund to the assessee for imported raw cashew nuts.
2. Interpretation of Customs Notifications regarding refund eligibility.
3. Application of case laws and legal principles in determining refund eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed for a refund after importing raw cashew nuts and selling them as processed cashew kernels. The Customs Duty paid included Special CVD. The refund application was partially granted by the adjudicating authority, leading to an appeal by the appellant against the rejection of the remaining amount.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the argument that part of the raw cashew nuts was sold as is, and the processing of the nuts amounted to a change in identity. However, a key Customs Notification did not include the requirement that the goods be sold "as such," which was highlighted in a previous Tribunal decision. The omission of this condition was crucial in determining the eligibility for a refund.

3. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that a change in form does not necessarily alter the identity of a commodity. Both cashew nuts and cashew kernels are classified under the same category, and there is no distinction in tax treatment between them. The Tribunal found the arguments against the appellant's case to be lacking merit, especially in light of previous decisions and legal principles.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision could not be upheld. The appellant's appeal was allowed, indicating that the denial of the refund was unfounded. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting Customs Notifications accurately and applying legal principles consistently in determining refund eligibility.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the denial of a refund to an appellant concerning imported raw cashew nuts, emphasizing the significance of Customs Notifications and legal precedents in such cases. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal underscored the need for a thorough analysis of relevant laws and principles to ensure fair treatment in refund matters.