9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with GST department. The appellant is also engaged in importing and exporting of goods for which the appellant is having IEC No. 3302002203. 2.2 The appellant filed two bills of entry No. 3171879 and 3172213 both dated 09.09.2017 for import clearance of 'stainless steel coils'. The appellant had imported the said goods under Advance Authorization Scheme. At the time of import, CVD @ 18.95% and IGST @ 18% were levied in terms of Notification No. 1/2017-Customs (CVD) dated 07.09.2017 which was paid by the appellant and got the goods cleared. 2.3 At the time of import, the appellant requested to assess the goods provisionally on furnishing of security in the shape of 100% bank guarantee but the respondent did not agree and assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon'ble High court, thereafter, the appellant preferred first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the precedent decisions on identical issues. He further submits that appellant imported the goods under Advance Authorization Scheme for processing and manufacturing of goods meant for export and there is no duty on export of goods. He further submits that under Advance Authorization Scheme, raw material can be imported without payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate issued by DGFT. He further submits that when the goods has been exported and all conditions are fulfilled, then the appellant is entitled to refund in view of judgment dated 16.08.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited (Supra). He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and squarely covered by following judgments of various High Courts: (i) Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2018 (17) GSTL 222. (ii) M/s Narendra Plastic Private Limited Vs. Union of India 2017 (4) GSTL 439 (Del). (iii) M/s JTL Infra Limited Vs Union of India 2019 (29) GSTL 303 (Del) (iv) M/s Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India reported as 2020 (35) GSTL 261 (Guj) (v) Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreign Trade policy all kinds of duties leviable under Custom Tariff Act are exempted. Further, I find that the Government of India vide Notification No. 1/2017-Customs dated 07.09.2017 imposed CVD @ 18.95% under Section 9 of Customs Tariff Act, but thereafter, trade associations made various representations and thereafter, the government vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017 exempted the CVD. DGFT also issued Notification No. 33/2015-2020 dated 13.10.2017 to exempt CVD under Advance Authorization Scheme. In fact, the government rectified its mistake vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017 exempted the CVD. The question arose before the various High Courts regarding the retrospective applicability of Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
