2018 (11) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Customs dt.14.9.2007 as amended by N/N. 93/2008 dt.1.8.2008 - rejection on the ground that the claim was beyond the time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty - Held that - The issue is decided in the case of M/s. Goyal Impex & Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-IV) 2018 (9) TMI 95 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that the purpose of imposing SAD is to protect and ensure collection of appropriate sales tax or VAT that is payable on imported goods, which is paid upfront at the time of imports. SAD is not credited and set off from the sales tax or VAT, which is refundable to an importer after ascertaining the appellant to appropriate Sales Tax / VAT. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims of Special Additional Duty (SAD) | Direction to modify the refund order | Appeal against the recovery order

Refund claims of Special Additional Duty (SAD):
The appellant filed refund claims of SAD against 9 Bills of Entry in accordance with relevant notifications and circulars. The lower adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund as claimed by the appellants. However, the Commissioner of Customs directed to file an appeal for recovery of an erroneously paid refund against a specific Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and ordered recovery of the refund. The appellant challenged this decision.

Direction to modify the refund order:
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate referred to a previous case decided by the same Bench of CESTAT, where a similar issue was resolved in favor of the appellants. The advocate argued that the purpose of imposing SAD is to ensure the collection of appropriate sales tax or VAT, which should be refunded to the importer after verifying the payment of relevant taxes. The advocate highlighted that the impugned order was in line with previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal found the appellant eligible for a refund despite a slight delay in filing the claim and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

Appeal against the recovery order:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and previous judgments, ruled that the impugned order was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to produce any orders or judgments contrary to the previous decision of the Bench. Following the ratio decidendi of the previous case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential benefits. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the refund, and the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.