2024 (6) TMI 1189 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - imported goods were Betel Nut Industrial Grade (not fit for human consumption), whereas goods sold in domestic market were Supari (edible) - correlation between the imported goods Betel Nut Industrial Grade and goods sold in domestic market as Supari - benefit of N/N. 102/2007- Customs dated 14.09.2007 - HELD THAT - Considering the facts of the case which is not in dispute that there is no distinction between the areca nuts betel nuts as certified under CTH 0802090 of HSN at the time of importation as edible goods which are not suitable for immediate consumption. It is also the case of the respondent-assessee that such imported goods were required further processing to make them edible. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal has also referred to and relied upon the information available on DGFT website wherein also areca nut and supari has been considered as the same product in the minutes of ALC meeting No. 02/2007 held on 20.4.2006. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal while upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal is therefore being devoid of any merits do not give rise to any questions of law - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of Special Additional Duty on import of "Betel Nut Industrial Grade" rejected.
2. Appeal against the rejection of refund claim.
3. Dispute over the classification of imported goods as industrial betel nut and its suitability for human consumption.
4. Correlation between imported goods and goods sold by the respondent-assessee.

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection
The respondent-assessee filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty paid on the import of "Betel Nut Industrial Grade." The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, stating that the imported industrial betel nut was not the same as edible betel nut, thus not qualifying for the refund under the relevant Notification.

Issue 2: Appeal against rejection
The respondent-assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the refund claim, contending that industrial betel nut and edible betel nut are identical. The Commissioner's decision was based on various evidences, including HSN, tariff descriptions, and official documents supporting the equivalence of industrial betel nut and supari.

Issue 3: Classification dispute
The Commissioner's decision highlighted that the goods imported were classified under Chapter 8 as edible fruits and nuts, indicating they were not immediately consumable in that state. The Commissioner rejected the adjudicating authority's objection based on the importer's registration with the VAT department as a kirana dealer, emphasizing that the objections were irrelevant to the refund under the Notification.

Issue 4: Correlation between goods
The appeal by the revenue against the Commissioner's decision was dismissed by the CESTAT, citing the lack of correlation between the imported goods and those sold by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the absence of any contest regarding the correlation between the imported industrial betel nut and the goods sold.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal, as there was no distinction between areca nuts and betel nuts at the time of importation, both being classified as edible goods requiring further processing. The Tribunal referenced information from the DGFT website supporting the equivalence of areca nut and supari. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal for lacking any legal questions.