Timber importer wins SAD refund appeal despite description mismatch between imported logs and processed sawn timber sales

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against recovery of SAD refund. The appellant imported wooden logs and sold them as sawn timber after processing. The department denied refund under N/N. 102/2007-Cus citing mismatch between imported goods and sale invoice descriptions. The Tribunal held that processing timber logs into sawn timber doesn't disqualify refund eligibility as the same imported goods were sold with VAT/sales tax paid. Minor procedural differences in descriptions don't affect substantial refund entitlement. The demand was also time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond one year without evidence of suppression or misrepresentation.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Denial of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus benefits due to processing of imported goods.
2. Non-declaration on invoices regarding SAD credit.
3. Alleged submission of incorrect invoices.
4. Demand for recovery of refund without challenging the original refund order.
5. Limitation period for issuing the show cause notice.

Summary:

1. Denial of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus Benefits:
The appellant's refund claim for special additional duty (SAD) was initially sanctioned but later challenged by the department on the grounds that the imported wooden logs were sold after processing into sawn timber. The appellant argued that the issue is no longer res-integra, citing various judgments, including *Variety Lumbers - 2018 (360) ELT 790 (SC)*, which upheld that the benefit of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied even if the imported goods are sold after processing.

2. Non-declaration on Invoices Regarding SAD Credit:
The department also contested the refund on the basis that the appellant did not declare on the invoices that no credit of additional duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is available. The appellant countered that they are not registered dealers authorized to issue cenvatable invoices and that the invoices did not indicate SAD paid, fulfilling the objective of para 2(b) of the Notification. Judgments such as *Commissioner vs. Kohler India Corporation Pvt. Ltd - 2012-TIOL-182-CESTAT-BANG* were cited to support this argument.

3. Alleged Submission of Incorrect Invoices:
The department alleged that the appellant submitted incorrect invoices, with discrepancies in the description of timber, endorsement on the invoice, and number of pieces. The appellant argued that these alterations were immaterial as the VAT was paid on the sale price of the timber, and there was no malafide intention. They referenced *Parminder Kaur vs. State of UP AIR 2010 SC 840* to assert that not every alteration amounts to forgery.

4. Demand for Recovery of Refund Without Challenging the Original Refund Order:
The appellant contended that the demand for recovery is not maintainable since the original refund order was not appealed by the department, making it final. They cited *Priya Blue Industries Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner - 2004 (272) ELT 145 (SC)* among others to support this claim.

5. Limitation Period for Issuing the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued more than one year after the refund. They maintained that the larger period for demand is applicable only in cases of suppression, misrepresentation, collusion, or fraud, none of which were present. The case of *Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. CC, Madras - 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC)* was cited to support their argument on limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the refund was correctly sanctioned, and the discrepancies pointed out by the department were minor and procedural. The primary condition for refund, payment of VAT/sales tax, was met. The Tribunal held that the demand for recovery of the refund was not sustainable, both on merits and on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---