Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of Special Additional Duty was admissible when the imported bitumen was described as "Bitumen grade 60/70" in some bills of entry and as "Bitumen VG-30" in some sales invoices, and whether the conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 stood satisfied.
Analysis: The description variation was held to be immaterial because penetration grade and viscosity grade referred to the same product, with VG-30 corresponding to the 60/70 penetration grade. The record showed that the description matched in the majority of invoices and the Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the bill of entry-wise details and the explanatory material showing that BIS had shifted bitumen grading from penetration basis to viscosity basis. On that basis, the imported and sold goods were treated as the same goods, and the objection based on nomenclature was rejected as a flimsy ground.
Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and the Revenue's objection failed; the imported bitumen and the sold bitumen were accepted as the same product for purposes of the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund under the SAD notification cannot be denied merely because the imported goods and the sale invoice describe the same product by different but equivalent trade grades, so long as the identity of the goods and the other substantive conditions of the notification are satisfied.