COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI Vs. REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEN appeals filed by Revenue against the same respondent are being considered in this proceeding because all these appeals involve same issue. Further, it was noticed at the stage of hearing the stay petitions that the issue in dispute has already been decided in two orders of the Tribunal, one such order being Final Order No. 40492 -40495/2013 dt. 23.9.2013. Therefore, after disposing the stay petitions, the appeals were taken up for hearing and both sides were heard accordingly. The issue involved in these appeals is refund claim filed by the respondent for Special Customs Duty [SAD] under provisions of notification No. dt. 14.9.07.

(2.) SAD is levied under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1985 by issuing Notification No. dt. 1.3.2006. This duty is levied at the time of importation of goods in lieu of Sales Tax/VAT levied by the States. There is a scheme under which the importer can claim refund of SAD paid if it is proved that after importation, the goods are sold on payment of VAT as applicable. This scheme is operated through exemption notification No. and the refund claims disputed in these appeal were filed as per the provisions of this notification. The adjudicating authority denied the refund claims in respect of certain items which were exempted from payment of SAD vide notification dt. 27.10.2010 (Sl.No. 1). Though SAD was exempted under the said notification, the respondent paid SAD on such goods and sought refund under notification The adjudicating authority denied such refund on the ground that when there was an unconditional exemption from SAD available to the goods in question, the respondent could not have paid such duty and then claimed refund. It is also argued that such refund involved re -assessment of Bill of Entry without challenging the original assessment order, which course of action is not permitted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Vs. CCE, 2004(172) ELT 145 (SC). Therefore, the adjudicating authority disallowed refund claim in respect of such goods. Aggrieved by the order, appellants filed appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed such refund and against such order, Revenue has filed appeals along with stay applications.

(3.) ON the second issue, the ruling given in the order dt. 23.9.2013 is that in the case of goods, for which there is no exemption from SAD, when refund is being granted under notification No. dt. 14 -09 -07 after payment of VAT on sale of the goods and on submission of documents prescribed under the said notification, it is not taken as a case of reassessment. Such objections are not raised while administering benefit of notification for normal goods imported on which SAD is paid. Therefore is no reason to take such objection in the case of goods which were exempted from SAD under Notification dt. 27.10.2010 (Sl.No. 1) but on which the respondent paid duty without availing exemption. We find no reason to change our earlier decision and therefore the appeals filed by Revenue are rejected.