TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER Per: Bench The brief facts are that the appellants filed refund claims for refund of SAD in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cuse dated 14/09/2007. The refund claims were partly rejected by the adjudicating authority as the appellants have not paid the VAT as they availed VAT exemption. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld upheld the rejection of refund claim. Hence this appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sales tax/VAT and therefore the appellants could not produce any documents for payment of VAT. The authorities below erred in interpreting the conditions in the notification and have rejected the refund claims on erroneous grounds. He relied upon the decision in the case of Gazal Overseas Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2016 (332) ELT 767 (Tri.-DeI) and submitted that the said decision holds that if the VAT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... papers. Notification No.102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 as amended allowed refund of SAD subject to the condition that the importer shall pay appropriate sales tax or VAT, as the case may be. In the present case, the appropriate sales tax or VAT being NIL the appellants cannot be said to have violated the said conditions of the said notification inasmuch as it cannot be said that they have not paid app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ropriate to reduce the refund amount in such a situation and the entire 4% CVD, if otherwise found eligible, shall be refunded. It is evident from the above clarification of C.B.E. & C. that even if VAT/ Sales tax was less than 4%, the appellant was entitled to refund of SAD which was 4% so long as VAT/sales tax was paid. In other words, so long as appropriate VAT/Sales tax was paid, SAD refund w....