9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant would not be entitled to refund of the 4% SAD paid, when such supplies were against works contract for installation of the roofing material made out of imported goods in the premises of the customers/buyers. In the event the amount of SAD was paid by using DEPB scrip at the time of its import, refund could be allowed in cash. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/10969-10972/2013-DB, C/12220-12222/2014-DB & C/10064/2014-DB - A/12796-12803/2017 - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - Dr D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Assessee(s): Shri Vipul Khandhar, Chartered Accountant For Revenue: Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: Dr D.M. Misra These appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted that the appellant had imported the steel sheets in coil form and against works contract , after converting it into roofing material installed it at the premises of the buyers. It is his contention that the supplies made against works contract , converting the imported goods into roofing material, refund of 4% SAD paid has been denied by the authorities following the judgment of this Tribunal, later upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in their own case. He has submitted that they do not dispute the rejection of refund in such cases. However, during the relevant period, besides supplying the imported material against works contract , they had also sold the coils and also in sheet form. In support of his contention, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t disputed the inadmissibility of refund of 4% SAD paid on those coils/sheets which were later converted into roofing materials and installed in the premises of the customer against works contract. However, the Ld. Advocate has vehemently argued that the principle of law settled by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court cannot be made applicable in the changed circumstances, when the imported coils or sheets are sold as such, that is, in coil and sheet form by the assessee-appellant, which is evident from the invoices raised by them. We find force in the contention of Ld. Advocate for the assessee-appellant. However, on going through the records, we could not find detailed bifurcation of the sales against works contract and as such sale of coils ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be legally sustained. Consequently, it is declared that the Circular Nos.6/2008, 10/2012 and 18/2013 issued by the C.B.E. C., insofar as they seek to deny importers and exporters the refund of the SAD paid by using DEPB scripts, are invalid. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellant are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the quantum of as such sale of the imported material sold in coil or sheet form, which alone could be considered for refund of 4% SAD paid at the time of import. In the event the amount of SAD was paid by using DEPB scrip at the time of its import, refund could be allowed in cash. Consequently, the assessee s appeals are allowed by way of remand to the extent mentioned as above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
