Pr. Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Hyderabad \u2013 GST Versus M\/s Evonik India Pvt. Ltd.
Customs
2019 (2) TMI 497 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 6-11-2018
Appeal Nos. C\/31010 & 31099\/2018 – A\/31557-31558\/2018
Customs
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nShri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (ARs) for the Appellant (s).
\nNone for the Respondent (s).
\nORDER
\nPer: P. Venkata Subba Rao
\nThese two appeals and the corresponding stay petitions have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders of the First Appellate Authority as follows:
\nSl. No.
\nAppeal No.
\nStay petition No.
\nImpugned Order
\n1.
\nC\/31010\/2018
\nC\/Stay\/30700\/2018
\nOIA No. HYD-CUS-000-APP-006-18-19, dated 24.05.2018
\n2.
\nC\/31099\/2018
\nC\/Stay\/30739\/2018
\nOIA No. HYD-CUS-000-APP-016-18-19, dated 22.06.2018
\n2. When these two appeals were called out, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Since the issue falls in short compass the matter <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n AD unit is 4%, to claim SAD refund VAT as applicable for the goods in question has to be paid which could be more or less than 4%. In this case the respondent's goods were exempted from VAT and as such nil rate of duty VAT was applicable and they had sold the goods and claimed refund of SAD. The refund applications were rejected by the lower authority holding that they had not fulfilled the conditions of the Notification No. 102\/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 inasmuch as they had not paid any VAT or sales tax on the goods sold and therefore the exemption notification does not apply to them. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Nikhil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2005 (187) ELT 6 (Cal.)] the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta also held that the term 'appropriate' does not include 'nil'. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pr. Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Hyderabad \u2013 GST Versus M\/s Evonik India Pvt. Ltd.Customs2019 (2) TMI 497 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 6-11-2018Appeal Nos. C\/31010 & 31099\/2018 – A\/31557-31558\/2018CustomsMr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (ARs) for the Appellant (s). None for … Continue reading “Pr. Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Hyderabad \u2013 GST Versus M\/s Evonik India Pvt. Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16685","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority who, after examining the matter in detail, allowed the appeals of the assessee. The present appeals are against these orders of the First Appellate Authority.
\n5. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the exemption notification has to be strictly construed and it requires that the appropriate rate of VA<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\niii) Even, if more than one interpretation is possible the exemption notification must be strictly construed and therefore the benefit of the exemption notification No. 102\/2007 should not have been given to the respondent herein. Therefore the orders of the first appellate authority may be set aside.
\n6. I have considered the arguments and perused the records. The short point to be decided is whether the benefit of SAD in terms of Notification No. 102\/2007-Cus is available to importers who sell the imported goods on payment of nil rate of VAT when the applicable rate of VAT is nil. The Department asserts that it is not available while the first appellate authority held that it is available. The Department seeks to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (supra) to hold t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n