9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s "the Tribunal") in Customs Appeals No. 10966 to 10968/2013 as well as the common order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.C/ROM/10729 to 10736/2017. 2. The appellant is engaged in the business of providing self-supported steel roofing, pre-fabricated buildings and structures, which are normally used for industrial purposes. Among various inputs and materials required for the appellant's business activities, one of the materials is "prime quality pre-painted aluminium zinc alloy coated steel sheet in coil form". The appellant imported various consignments of the above referred goods and all such goods have been allowed to be cleared on payment of appropriate custom duties, including special additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee appeals came to be listed before a Single Member Bench of the Tribunal and four appeals came to be listed before a Division Bench of the Tribunal. The three appeals before the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal came to be decided by the impugned order dated 17.04.2017, whereby the appeals came to be dismissed. 4. Insofar as the four appeals out of the same group are concerned, a Division Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.09.2017 passed in Appeals No.C/10969/2013-DB to C/10972/2013-DB, remanded the appeals filed by the appellant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2017, to point out that the same was passed in two groups of appeals, wherein the Customs Appeals No.10966 to 10968 of 2013-SM arose out of the Orderin- Original No.91 to 97/2013/Cus/ Commr(A)/Ahd dated 25.02.2013. It was submitted that a common Order-in-Appeal came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad in seven appeals being Order-in-Appeal No.91 to 97/2013, out of which on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, four appeals were placed before a Division Bench of the Tribunal and three appeals were placed before a Single Member of the Tribunal. While the three appeals before the Single Member came to be decided by the impugned order dated 17.04.2017 whereby the appeals came to be dismissed, in the other four matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal, the appellant is not entitled to be given a chance to rectify the mistake. 8. In rejoinder Mr. Paresh Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that no additional claim has been raised by the appellant and that in the claim, the claim in respect of goods sold "as such" is included and therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellant is entitled to the relief granted by the Division Bench in the appeals before it. 9. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the court is of the view that the appeals require consideration. Hence, ADMIT. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration: "Whether in matters arising out of identical facts and from a comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with. In view of the above decision, in the appeals which were pending before the Division Bench, the appellant raised the issue of refund of 4% SAD on goods sold "as such" which was accepted by the Tribunal and the matters came to be remanded to determine the component of goods sold "as such" on which refund of 4% SAD could be granted. Thereafter, the appellant moved the miscellaneous applications before the Tribunal contending that a portion of the refund amount comprises of goods sold "as such" on which refund of 4% SAD would be admissible, which came to be rejected by the Tribunal on the technical ground that such plea was not raised during the course of arguments. 11. Before this court also, on the technical plea that the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 4% SAD paid at the time of import. 13. However, on identical facts, the appeals of the appellants have been dismissed by the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal. While it is true that the issue with regard to the sale of the goods "as such" had not been raised before the Tribunal, however, subsequently after the passing of the order dated 27.09.2017 by the Division Bench, the appellant filed a rectification application before the Tribunal pointing out that it was entitled to the claim of refund of 4% SAD on imported coils/sheets etc., which were used "as such". However, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application on the technical plea that such issue had not been raised either before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
