2017 (5) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts of the case are that the appellants had imported "Prime Quality Pre-painted Aluminium Zinc Alloy Coated Steel Sheet in Coil form" and cleared the same on payment of duty of Customs including 4% SAD. Later, they filed refund claim of 4% of the SAD under Exemption Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007, as amended, on sale of the said goods. A show cause notice was issued to them proposing rejection of the refund claim on the ground that what they have imported was different from what they have sold viz. "Laying of proflex roof with material-curved length of installed roof". On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present case, what is imported by the appellant is coil sheets. The special Additional Duty is paid on such imported goods namely coil sheets, Thereafter, what is manufactured and sold by the appellant is "Proflex Roof" and on such "Proflex Roof" VAT is paid. Therefore, it cannot be said the assessee has paid the VAT on the goods imported, on which, Special Additional Duty has been paid. Under the circumstances, on of the condition mentioned in the Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 has not been complied with. 7. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that in fact what is used subsequently is the coil sheets and only the process of corrugation is done which subsequently installed on the building as per the requiremen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted i.e. coil sheets and what is sold subsequently is "Proflex Roof"and what is charged by the appellant is for "Proflex Roof" on which the VAT has been paid and as the VAT is not paid on the coil sheets, the appellant is rightly denied the refund of Special Additional Duty claimed under the Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. 8. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Posco India Delhi Steel processing Centre P Ltd (supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that on facts is was observed and found that the process undertaken by the importer did not amount to manufacture and imported goods continued to retain their distinct and original character as well as....