MESSRS PROFLEX SYSTEMS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant has challenged the common Final Order No.A/10889 to 10896/2-17 dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "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 duty (SAD) leviable under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant was under the impression that refund of 4% SAD paid by them on the above referred goods was admissible under Notification No.102/2007- Cus. in all cases where the imported steel sheets were sold and supplied to their customers because the sales tax/VAT had always been paid on such materials sold and supplied to the customers. Therefore, the appellant lodged refund claims under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 for the period from January 2010 to March 2012 with all requisite documents. Such refund claims were rejected by the custom authorities on the ground that what was imported by the appellant was "prime quality pre-painted aluminium zinc alloy coated steel sheet in coil form", whereas what was sold by the appellant as works contract service was material for laying of proflex roof, which fell under different classification and, therefore, the condition of the notification that the goods imported were sold on payment of VAT/sales tax was not satisfied. Being aggrieved, the appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who vide Order-in- Appeal No.91 to 97/2013/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD, upheld the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeals.

(3.) The appellant carried the matters in appeal before the Tribunal. It appears that due to pecuniary jurisdiction, out of the seven appeals filed by the appellant against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), three 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.