2019 (2) TMI 99 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dt. 14.09.2007 - rejection on the ground that the condition in clause 2 (d) of the notification that the claimant has to establish that VAT / CST has been paid in the domestic sale is not fulfilled - Held that - The issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Gazal Overseas Vs CC New Delhi 2015 (12) TMI 427 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - This very Bench in the case of Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. & Other 2017 (6) TMI 565 - CESTAT CHENNAI has held the issue in favor of the assessee - rejection of refund not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus.
2. Fulfillment of condition in clause 2(d) of the notification.
3. Applicability of VAT / CST payment in domestic sale.
4. Tribunal's decision in the case of Gazal Overseas Vs CC New Delhi.
5. Tribunal's decision in the case of Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:

1. The appellants filed a refund claim for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The claim was rejected by the authorities due to non-fulfillment of the condition in clause 2(d) of the notification, which required establishing payment of VAT / CST in domestic sale. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

2. Despite the absence of representation from the appellants, the Tribunal proceeded with the case as the issue was covered by a previous decision. The department was represented by the Assistant Commissioner who supported the findings of the lower authorities.

3. The key issue revolved around whether the appellants were entitled to a refund even if the imported goods were exempted from VAT / Sales Tax laws. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in the cases of Gazal Overseas Vs CC New Delhi and Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. In both cases, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, indicating that the rejection of the refund application was unjustified.

4. Citing the precedents, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund application was unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling the conditions specified in notifications for claiming refunds and the significance of precedent in determining the eligibility for such refunds. The Tribunal's reliance on previous decisions underscores the consistency and predictability in tax disputes resolution.