CCT, Visakhapatnam GST Versus Sri Sitarama Lakshmi Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd
Customs
2018 (5) TMI 1246 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – 2019 (370) E.L.T. 939 (Tri. – Hyd.)
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 17-5-2018
Appeal No. E/31339/2017 – FINAL ORDER No. A/30566/2018
Customs
Hon'ble Mr. P. V. Subba Rao, Member ( Technical )
Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
ORDER
[ Order Per : P. Venkata Subba Rao ]
1. When this matter was called, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Ld. Departmental Representative explained the case as follows.
2. The assessee imported jute yarn from Bangladesh which was exempted from Basic Customs Duty and CVD. However, they paid Special Additional Duty (SAD) @ 4% as applicable and applied for refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/97-Cus. Their application for refund was rejected by the lower authority on the following grounds:
a) Para 2 (a) of the notification 102/97-Cus requires the importer t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the notification is concerned, where goods are sold on a commercial invoice, no such endorsement is required and merely not mentioning the SAD on the invoice would suffice as laid down by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RKG International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. &Cus. Noida [2013 (290)ELT 253 (Tri-Del)] and remanded it back to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the refund. The appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not contested by the Department on grounds of monetary limits and therefore, has become final. Based on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund. The Department appealed against this to the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected it vide OIA No. 7/2016 [VSP]CE [D] dated 28.9.2017. This is an appeal against this OIA of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Condition No. 3 of the notification 102/97 says that the application for refund must be filed with the jurisdictional officer. In this case, the goods
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sioner, Vizianagaram. He could have returned the application directing it to be filed before the jurisdictional officer. Instead, he considered it on merits and passed an order rejecting it. The department appealed to Commissioner (Appeals) and it does not emerge from the OIA that the department raised this issue of jurisdiction before the Commissioner (Appeals) either. When the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the to the lower authority for sanction of refund, this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was also not contested by the Department. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund and the department appealed against it before the Commissioner (Appeals) citing the issue of jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal and hence this appeal.
6. Special Additional Duty (SAD) @ 4% was introduced to provide a level playing field to the domestic manufacturers who suffer VAT (which is not leviable on the imports). If the imported goods are
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =