TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this. Therefore, the appeal is taken up on merits for final disposal. 2. This is an assessee's appeal wherein the assessee has questioned the denial of refund. 3.1 Brief facts relevant are that appellant imported raw cashew nuts (under CTH 08013100) vide several Bills of Entry for subsequent sale either in the same form or in the processed form as cashew kernels (i.e., under CTH 08013100 or 08013220); that it had paid Customs Duty on import which included payment of Rs. 24,02,679/- as Special CVD (SAD) under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; that the appellant filed applications for refund in respect of each of the Bills of Entry in terms of Notification 102/2007 on the ground that they having imported and processed, had sold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., I also find that on the refund of SAD vis-à-vis the exemption Notification No. 102/2007, this very Bench of the CESTAT vide Final Order No. 40860-40861/2018 dated 16.03.2018 in the case of M/s. Kanam Latex Industries (P) Ltd. & Anor. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin has held as under : "7. Though, the Commissioner has taken note of the above decision of the Tribunal but he has not followed the same in the light of circular issued by the Board requiring that the goods should have been sold ‚as such‛. Apart from the fact that it is well settled principle of law that no extraneous conditions can be introduced in the notification which has to be interpreted on its own wordings, we also take note of the fact that thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inside the shell, whatever the use or purpose to which it is put, eating or crushing for oil or sowing. The tariff entry covers all groundnut and there is no justification for confining it to the germinating or the oil seed variety alone. On behalf of the appellant, it is emphasized that the goods exported by the assessee and groundnut oil seeds are totally different commercial commodities. It is submitted that Diwan Chand Chaman Lal's case (1977-39 S.T.C. 75) says so and that the various classification lists produced prove this. Even the acceptance of this argument does not carry the appellant's case to the desired result. Assuming that two different commercial commodities fall under the same entry, there is no reason why the entry should ....