9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 883 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - Refund rejected on the ground that the appellant had not paid any Sales Tax/VAT on the sale of the imported goods - HELD THAT - This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal including the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant s own case VALLABHDAS AND CO. BALAKRISHNA SALES CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COCHIN 2017 (5) TMI 1371 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the Tribunal has allowed all the appeals by relying upon the earlier decisions of the Tribunal - also the N/N. 34/1998 has been subsequently rescinded by N/N. 58/1998-Cus. dated 01.08.1998. It was held that NIL rate of VAT in terms of the notification issued under Kerala Finance Act 2001 is to be considered as appropriate sales tax / VAT. Accordingly, the condition prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007 is satisfied and the appellant will be eligible for the refund of the SAD paid at the time of input. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-payment of Sales Tax/VAT, reliance on Apex Court decision, applicability of rescinded Notification 34/1998-Cus., interpretation of Notification 102/2007 Cus. Analysis: The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported Rock Phosphate due to non-payment of Sales Tax/VAT on local sale. The appellant imported goods from Egypt, cleared them at Cochin port, and filed a refund claim under Notification 102/2007 Cus. The Customs issued a show-cause notice rejecting the claim, citing non-payment of Sales Tax/VAT. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the rejection, referring to the Tribunal's decision in the appellant's case and the Apex Court's decision on Notification No. 34/1998-Cus. The Commissioner affirmed the rejection. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to consider binding judicial precedents and facts. They highlighted a Tribunal's Final Order in their favor on a similar issue, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal for refund. The appellant pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner had granted a refund in another case based on the Tribunal's decision but denied it in this case without valid reasons. They also contended that the Apex Court's decision on Notification 34/1998-Cus. was inapplicable as it was rescinded by Notification 58/1998-Cus. They cited various decisions supporting their claim. The learned AR defended the impugned order during the hearing. After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found the issue settled by its previous decisions, including the appellant's case. The Tribunal noted that reliance on the rescinded Notification 34/1998-Cus. by both parties was legally untenable. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision in the appellant's case, where it clarified that a NIL rate of VAT under the Kerala Finance Act 2001 constituted appropriate Sales Tax/VAT as per Notification 102/2007 Cus. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the precedent established in the appellant's own case and the interpretation of the relevant notifications. The decision emphasized the importance of following binding judicial precedents and correctly interpreting legal provisions to determine eligibility for refunds of duties paid on imported goods.
|
