9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 323 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - SAD - denial on the ground that what they have imported was different from what they have sold viz. Laying of proflex roof with material-curved length of installed roof - Held that - the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PROFLEX SYSTEMS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2017 (3) TMI 216 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , framed the question of law in regard, and anlysing the issue observed that proflex roof is different from the imported coil sheets, hence benefit of N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 cannot be extended to the assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
Issues:
- Refund claim under Exemption Notification No.102/2007-Cus - Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - Application of previous legal judgments - Compliance with conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus Refund Claim under Exemption Notification No.102/2007-Cus: The appellants imported "Prime Quality Pre-painted Aluminium Zinc Alloy Coated Steel Sheet in Coil form" and later filed a refund claim of 4% of the Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Exemption Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The claim was rejected on the ground that what was imported differed from what was sold as "Laying of proflex roof with material-curved length of installed roof." The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal. The appellant argued that what they imported was steel roof in coil form, cut to size, and installed as roof top for customers. However, the Revenue contended that the facts were similar to a previous case where the benefit of the notification was deemed inadmissible due to differences between the imported item and the final product. Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007: The High Court observed that the imported coil sheets were different from the proflex roof sold by the appellant. The appellant argued that they provided services by using the coil sheets, and therefore, were not liable to pay VAT on the value of the services. However, the court emphasized the conditions of the notification and concluded that the appellant had not paid VAT on the imported goods, leading to the denial of the refund claim. The court highlighted that the appellant charged for the proflex roof, including the material value, and did not issue a separate invoice for the coil sheets, indicating a difference between the imported and sold goods. Application of Previous Legal Judgments: The court discussed previous decisions where the benefit of the notification was granted when the imported goods retained their original identity after processing. However, in the present case, the court found that the coil sheets were transformed into proflex roof, leading to a loss of identity of the imported goods. The court distinguished these cases from the current scenario, emphasizing that the imported goods were no longer identifiable after processing. Compliance with Conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus: The court concluded that as the appellant had paid VAT on the proflex roof but not on the imported coil sheets, one of the conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus had not been satisfied. Therefore, the appellant was rightly denied the refund claim. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Tribunal. In summary, the judgment analyzed the refund claim under Exemption Notification No.102/2007-Cus, interpreted the conditions of the notification, discussed the application of previous legal judgments, and assessed the compliance with the notification's requirements. The court ruled in favor of denying the refund claim, emphasizing the differences between the imported coil sheets and the final product sold by the appellant.
|
