9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discrimination against the importer for no fault of theirs. The rejection of refund claim is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40397-40398 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER No. 41406-41407/2021 - Dated:- 24-3-2021 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Balakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in both these appeals being same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants imported laptop computers and cleared the goods by paying Special Additional Duty (SAD). Subsequently, the goods were sold to various educational institutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g manner in the case of Gazal Overseas (supra). The following relevant portions of the said decision makes for illuminating reading:- 4. We have considered the contention of ld. DR and also perused the refund papers. Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 as amended allowed refund of SAD subject to the condition that the importer shall pay appropriate sales tax or VAT, as the case may be. In the present case, the appropriate sales tax or VAT being NIL the appellants cannot be said to have violated the said conditions of the said notification inasmuch as it cannot be said that they have not paid appropriate sales tax/VAT. In this regard, it is seen that vide Circular No. 6/2008, dated 28-4-2008 C.B.E. C. in para 5.3 thereof clarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (supra) was on a totally different issue. It is seen that the said judgment pertains to exemption claimed by the respondents therein on the premise that raw materials were also exempt. On the other hand, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd : 1996 (83) ELT 3 (SC) has clearly held that nil rate is also an appropriate duty. The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment is reproduced herein:- 12. In our opinion, the decision in Wallace Flour Mills does not lay down a contrary proposition - neither does it support the contention of Sri Vellapally. That was a case where the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the goods and not to the actual levy. 'Excisable goods, it was held, do not become non-excisable goods merely by the reason of the exemption given under a notification. This view was also taken by the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu (Madras State) Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise -[1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 57)]. On the basis of Rule 9A of the said rules, the Central Excise authorities were within the competence to apply the rate prevailing on the date of removal. We are of the opinion that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or the production of an excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later date for administrative convenience. 6.9 The judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
