9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid by them on the commodity imported by them i.e. Thermal Transfer Ribbons (TTR). It is the case before adjudicating authority, that these TTR after imports underwent a processing from jumbo rolls to smaller rolls and subsequently sold by discharging the applicable VAT, refund claims were filed for the refund of SAD for the time of importation along with all the documents. The adjudicating authority rejected the said refund claims only on the ground that there is no co-relation of the goods imported and the goods sold in the case in hand. Appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after due process of law and also consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to my notice the findings of first appellate authority in Paragraph 5 wherein it is recorded that the importer/respondent has produced all relevant documents and after verification only came to a conclusion that the refund needs to be sanctioned. She relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s POSOCO India Delhi Steel Processing Ltd., [2013 (4) TMI 51 -CESTAT-Ahm] and submits that the said order was contested by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and their lordships upheld the order of the Tribunal reported at [2013 (6) TMI 347 (Guj-HC)]. 6. On careful considerations of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the issue is whether the importer/respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken a view that despite there being cutting and slitting of the jumbo rolls if it can be established that the goods which were sold on payment of local VAT, refund of the SAD paid cannot be denied. The said ratio having been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the question of not following the said ratio in the facts of case in hand does not arise. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s POSOCO India Delhi Steel Processing Ltd. I hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. The appeals are devoid of merit and are rejected. 10. The cross objections filed by the respondent assessee are also disposed of. (Order dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
