PROFLEX SYSTEMS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Cav) - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Miscellaneous Order No. M/10134-10137/2016, dated 17-3-2016 and Order No. A/10842-10845/2014, dated 22-4-2014 [2014 (308) E.L.T. 175 (Tribunal)] passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "CESTAT"), by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal and Miscellaneous Application preferred by the assessee-appellant herein, the appellant has preferred present appeal with the following proposed question of law.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :

(3.) That the appellant-assessee is engaged, inter alia, in the activity of importing prime quality pre-painted aluminum zinc alloy quoted steel sheet in coil falling under Tariff Heading No. 7210. It is the case on behalf of the assessee that the appellant is also carried out works contract of laying Proflex Roof with material on the building. That the assessee imported the coils on payment of imported duty as well as on payment of Special Additional Duty. That thereafter, the coils are converted into Roof on which, on further sale, the assessee has also paid Value Added Tax. According to the assessee, he was entitled to refund of Special Additional Duty paid at the time of import as per the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 on payment of VAT by the assessee. However, the same was denied and therefore, the assessee filed application for refund. The adjudicating authority adjudicated the claim of the assessee for refund of SAD on the ground that the assessee has not paid the VAT on the imported goods i.e. coils and what is sold subsequently by the assessee and on which VAT is paid is altogether different goods i.e. roof and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to refund of SAD as claimed as the conditions of the notification dated 14-9-2007 are not fulfilled/satisfied.