2016 (10) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e required for transmission of DTH channels to the television of subscribers. The STBs are imported by the appellants and then sold in the domestic market. The dispute in the present case has arisen on import of set top boxes by the appellant. At time of import, they paid the applicable customs duty, additional duty, educational cess and also special additional duty on the STBs on the basis of declared retail sale price (RSP). The Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 provides for exemption to goods from SAD which are imported and subsequently sold as such, if the importer pays appropriate VAT or sales tax while selling such goods. The appellants sold imported STBs and claimed refunds of SAD paid. Refund claims were sanctioned by the J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d goods should be sold in the domestic market as such on payment of appropriate VAT. There is no condition in the said Notification that the VAT paid should be at a price which is not less than imported price. In any case, the total VAT paid by them is more than the quantum of SAD paid on the imported STBs. (iii) They have also relied upon the case of Madras High Court in Eveready Industries Ld. Vs CESTAT reported in 2016 (337) ELT 189 and argued that without challenging the sanction of refund under Section 35E, the Department cannot initiate suppressed proceedings under Section 11A for determining the amount sanctioned as refund. 3. Heard Ld. Advocate Sh. A.R. Madhav Rao for the Appellant and Ld. DR Mr. Amresh Jain for the Revenue. 4. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund is that the appellant has not cleared for sale the same goods as imported. The SCN further alleged that the imported STBs were cleared after the appellant undertook manufacture which resulted in a new product i.e, 'antenna system and accessories'. However, it is seen that in the impugned order Commissioner has held that no manufacture has been undertaken by the appellant and still proceeded to pass the orders recalling the refund. 5. The second ground on which the impugned order seeks to deny the refund is that appropriate VAT has not been paid on the imported STBs. The appellant admits that the imported STBs have been sold at prices which are lesser than the RSPs declared at the time of import. However, they have also argue....