2019 (6) TMI 1036 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 - objection of the department was that entity who had paid VAT were different and therefore, the importer had failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification - HELD THAT - The respondent is a proprietor of both the organization and he has been allotted one TIN number for both the concerns under VAT Act. Further, I find that the certificate issued by the VAT clearly certifies that Mr. Ahmed Hajee Mohiudeen is the proprietor of M/s. Mohiudeen Saw Mills and M/s. Hajee Timber Complex and they have been registered dealer under the Karnataka VAT. Therefore, the objection of the Department that these two concerns are separate entities is not justified. Moreover, the Commissioner (A) has dealt with this issue at length and has rejected the objection of the department. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of SAD claimed by the respondent for different periods under Notification No. 102/2007.

Analysis:
The Department filed nine appeals against the Commissioner (A)'s order allowing the appeal of the assessee-respondent and setting aside the Order-in-Original denying refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007. The issue in all appeals pertained to refund claims for different periods. The respondent imported 'Keruing Face Veneer' for sale in India, regularly filing refund applications after paying VAT. The Department objected that the SAD refund was claimed by a different entity that paid VAT, leading to the original authority rejecting the claims. The Commissioner (A) reversed this decision, prompting the Department's appeals.

The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (A)'s order lacked legal sustainability, alleging non-compliance with Notification conditions. They highlighted discrepancies in the registration under the KVAT Act and the different entities involved in the transactions. In response, the respondent's counsel contended that objections were addressed in the impugned order, emphasizing the common proprietorship of the importer and the entities issuing invoices. They cited the KVAT Act provisions allowing only one TIN number for all businesses owned by an individual, supported by documentation certifying the proprietorship structure.

Upon review, it was established that the respondent was the proprietor of both organizations, holding a single TIN number under the VAT Act. The VAT certificate confirmed the proprietorship and registration of both entities under Karnataka VAT. The Commissioner (A) had thoroughly examined and dismissed the Department's objections, emphasizing the common proprietorship and single TIN number allocation. The detailed findings of the Commissioner (A) supported the conclusion that the importer had complied with Notification No. 102/2007 requirements, justifying the refund claims.

Conclusively, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision, rejecting the Department's appeals based on the established proprietorship structure, single TIN number allocation, and compliance with Notification conditions. The detailed and reasoned order of the Commissioner (A) was deemed valid and upheld, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the SAD refund for the specified periods.