https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339713 The court dismissed the appeal as the appellant did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The VAT was paid on a different product (Proflex Roof) and not on the imported coils, leading to the denial of the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, emphasizing that the VAT must be paid on the same goods imported to qualify for the refund. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339713 The court dismissed the appeal as the appellant did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The VAT was paid on a different product (Proflex Roof) and not on the imported coils, leading to the denial of the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, emphasizing that the VAT must be paid on the same goods imported to qualify for the refund. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339713