Court grants relief for goods sold "as such" under Notification No.102/2007-Cus, stresses decision uniformity

The Court allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant for goods sold "as such" under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Court emphasized the necessity of uniformity in decisions on identical issues for fairness and rectified the anomaly in tribunal judgments. The matter was directed back to the adjudicating authority to determine the "as such sale" component for refund eligibility, with no costs for the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to customs tribunal orders on refund claims under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. for imported goods sold as works contract service and "as such."

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in steel roofing business, imported goods and claimed refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. for SAD paid on goods sold to customers. Customs authorities rejected the refund claims, stating the goods sold as works contract service did not meet the notification conditions. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the rejection.

2. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, where some appeals were dismissed, and others remanded to determine the "as such sale" component for refund eligibility. A rectification application was rejected for not raising the issue earlier. The appellant argued for parity in relief based on similar cases.

3. The appellant's counsel highlighted the inconsistency in tribunal decisions on identical issues. The Division Bench allowed refund claims for goods sold "as such," while the Single Member Bench dismissed similar appeals. The appellant sought uniformity in relief across all appeals for fairness.

4. The respondent argued against rectification, citing the issue not raised earlier. The appellant maintained the inclusion of goods sold "as such" in the claim and sought relief based on the Division Bench's decision for consistency.

5. The Court admitted the appeal and identified the substantial question of law regarding parity of relief in appeals with common facts. The Court acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to refund for goods sold "as such" based on the Division Bench's decision.

6. The Court noted the absence of bifurcation in earlier proceedings regarding goods sold as works contract and "as such." The appellant's rectification application was rejected for not raising the issue earlier. However, the Court emphasized the need for uniformity in decisions on identical issues for fairness.

7. The Court found an anomaly in tribunal judgments due to bifurcation based on pecuniary jurisdiction. It held that uniformity in decisions was necessary for similar cases arising from a common order. The Court granted relief to the appellant for goods sold "as such" to rectify the anomaly and ensure fairness.

8. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the adjudicating authority to determine the "as such sale" component for refund eligibility. The Court emphasized the need for consistent decisions on identical issues for fairness and ordered no costs for the appeal.

---