PROFLEX SYSTEMS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals have been filed by the appellant against OIA Nos. 298 -301/2011/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD, dated 16 -9 -2011 under which four Orders -in -Original passed by the adjudicating authority have been upheld. Adjudicating authority has rejected four refund claims filed by the appellants under Notification No. , dated 14 -9 -2007. The reasoning given by the first appellate authority mainly is that the imported goods are not sold as such and thus appellant is not eligible to refund under Notification No. , dated 14 -9 -2007. Shri Uday Joshi (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that it has been held by the first appellate authority in Para 8.1 of the OIA dated 16 -9 -2011 that imported coils are removed as such. He further made the Bench go through the contracts and retail invoices issued by the appellant to drive home the point that VAT/CST was also paid on the clearance of the raw materials. He relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments that refunds are admissible to the appellants: -

(2.) SHRI G.P. Thomas, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that no sales tax is paid at the time of clearance of the goods and sales tax is paid only as 'deemed sales' at the time of raising final bill when the work of installation of roof is complete. He thus defended the view taken by the first appellate authority.

(3.) The jurisdictional customs officer shall sanction the refund on satisfying himself that the conditions referred to in para 2 above, are fulfilled."