2018 (9) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y No.4884321 dated 20.10.2011 and since the above goods were sold as such to ultimate customers, the appellant filed refund claims in respect of 4 Bills of Entry for refund of 4% SAD in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs dt.14.9.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008 dt.1.8.2008. The adjudicating authority in the adjudicating order sanctioned refund claims except one Bill of Entry dt.20/10/2011 for an amount of Rs. 60,587/- on the ground that the claim was beyond the time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty. The appellant having not succeeded in its appeal before the first appellate authority has filed this appeal before this forum. 2. Heard Shri.R.Mansoor Ilahi, Advocate for the appellant and the departmental r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....les tax or VAT that is payable on imported goods, which is paid upfront at the time of imports. SAD is not credited and set off from the sales tax or VAT, which is refundable to an importer after ascertaining the appellant to appropriate Sales Tax / VAT. I note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gulati Sales Corporation 2017 (supra) has considered both Notifications Nos.102/2007 and 93/2008; and also considered the decision of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and has ruled as under :- 8. We, therefore, do not find any conflict between the view expressed in Riso India (supra) and Sony India (supra). In fact, the Division Bench in Riso India (Supra) could not have taken a different view without referring the matter to a Larger ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d is issued. It goes without saying that the intent is that no double duty/tax - first, in the form of SAD and secondly, in form of sales tax or value added tax, is to be paid. 10. Circular dated 28th April, 2008 quoted above specifically states the view and understanding of the Revenue that Section 27 of the Act is not made applicable to the Notification No.102/2007 and the time limit prescribed under the said Section would not be applicable. The Revenue notwithstanding the said understanding and their Circular, now seeks to contend and urge to the contrary. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the impugned order being in consonance with the ratio in the case of Sony India (supra), no case for interference is made o....