2012 (8) TMI 80 - AT - Customs

Refund claims of SAD paid by them under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) considered the contentions of the respondents and sanctioned the refund claim but remanded the matter subject to verification of the documents in support of the claim for refund by the adjudicating authority i.e., CA. certificate, balance sheet and other relevant documents - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the documents in support of the claim of refund and pass appropriate order

Summary

Issues:
1. Discharge of liability of VAT/CST by the respondents while clearing imported goods in the domestic market.
2. Rejection and sanctioning of refund claims by the adjudicating authority.
3. Challenge by the respondents and Revenue against the rejection and sanction of refund claims.
4. Verification of documents supporting the refund claims by the adjudicating authority.
5. Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter for further verification in some cases.
6. Revenue's appeal against all orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involves multiple appeals filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) by the respondents on imported iron and steel items. The respondents claimed to have discharged their VAT/CST liability while clearing the goods in the domestic market and subsequently filed refund claims for the SAD paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected most refund claims but sanctioned two appeals. The Revenue challenged the sanction of refund claims, while the respondents contested the rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) generally upheld the refund claims, subject to verification of supporting documents in some cases. In specific appeal numbers, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the refund claims to be valid based on the certification that the burden of SAD was not passed on to customers. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in these cases, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. Additionally, in other appeals, where the matter was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) for document verification, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge this aspect and found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for lacking merit.

---