TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the time of importation. The goods were sold to M/s GIPL. The Respondents filed refund claim of 4% additional duty of Customs under the provision of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No.102/2007-Cus, dt.14.09.2007 as amended, vide their letter dt.31.07.2012 as the imported goods were sold during the month of March 2012 to GIPL. The Adjudicating authority had sanctioned the refund claim. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Adjudication order on the ground that the refund was sanctioned in violation of condition of Notification No.102/2007-Cus (supra) as the Respondents had made the sale transactions only on paper. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the Revenue filed this appeal. 2. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that refund of Customs duty is eligible on SAD for sale of the said goods. There was no sale transaction between the Respondents and GIPL. It is revealed from the contract that GIPL entered into contract with foreign suppliers for supply of materials in the name of G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... document evidencing payment of the said additional duty; (ii) invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. The jurisdictional customs officer shall sanction the '3. refund on satisfying himself that the conditions referred to in para 2 above, are fulfilled." 5. The main contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue is that there was no sale of the imported goods to M/s GIPL and therefore, the Respondent is not eligible for refund. But, there is no dispute that the Respondent fulfilled all the conditions in so far as they have paid sales tax, VAT and also paid the additional duty of customs. According to the Revenue, all these invoices are merely paper transactions. We find from the Agreement of Supply between M/s GIPL (Buyer) and the Appellant (Supplier) that GIPL decided to set up a power plant in Khasra, Uttarakhand. The Appellant is engaged in the business of undertaking procurement of supply of power plant equipment and GIPL desired to purchase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai for domestic supplies. The delivery date has also been specifies as the day on which the last part of the equipment/material is delivered to such delivery point. Article 6.5 which provides for delivery payments reads as under:- "Supplier shall, pursuant to a direct disbursement procedure approved by the buyer, furnish its commercial invoice in respect of delivery payments of the contract price, accompanied by the supporting documents set forth in Appendix B hereto, to the agent corporate. Therefore, buyer assumes no responsibility for early payments for supplies or import duties, which in the aggregate, on a quarterly basis, exceed the cumulative total amounts shown in Appendix B, supplier shall provide the buyer at least 25 (twenty five) days prior notice of such early shipment...." 7.4 Respondent has also submitted that Bank of Baroda has financed the power project of their buyer with a project cost of Rs. 909.18 Crores; that the facilities and finance granted by the Bank is secured against hypothecation and mortgage of the entire assets of the buyer which included each item of equipment procured and supplied by them to the buyer; and that the bank would finance only when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), once details of goods in the BOE and details of goods in the sales match completely." 6. We find that the sales tax authorities accepted the sale of the goods on the basis of invoices and confirmed the payment of CST. It is revealed from the agreement that the title of the goods was transferred to M/s GIPL as soon as the invoices were raised to M/s GIPL. The sale is completed as soon as titles are transferred to the purchasers. In this situation, the assessing officer cannot question the basis of sales transactions. The learned Authorised Representative vehemently contested the impugned order in so far as the finance was arranged by M/s GIPL. In our considered view, the finance arranged by M/s GIPL cannot be basis to hold that there was no sale of the goods. The arrangement of finance is within the domain of the sale and purchase of the two parties, which are common in nature. It is noted that the sales tax authorities accepted the sale of the goods on the basis of invoices produced by the Respondents. The exemption Notification No.102/2007-Cus stipulates the condition for availing the exemption and determined the prescribed method which were fulfilled by the Respondent. The Ho....