2021 (4) TMI 1182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sold to various educational institutions. However, no sales tax was paid on the transactions as this transaction qualify as a sale in the course of import and it was exempted from CST under Section 5 (2) of CST Act. Thereafter, they filed refund claim for the SAD paid during the relevant period. The said refund claim was rejected stating the ground that the appellant has neither paid VAT nor CST on the imported goods. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant is exempted from paying Central Sales Tax on the goods as has been exempted under the provisions of the CST Act. It i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....28-4-2008 C.B.E. & C. in para 5.3 thereof clarified as under: 5.3 The exemption contained in the said notification envisages that the importer shall file a refund claim for 4% CVD (said additional duty of Customs) paid on imported goods and shall pay on sale of the said goods appropriate Sales Tax or VAT as the case may be Hence, it is clear that there is no stipulation in the notification that the exemption is available only if the rate of ST/VAT is equal to or higher than the rate of additional duty of Customs; nor is there a condition that if the rate of ST/VAT happen to be lower than 4%, the refund would be restricted to the lower amount. As such, it is clarified that it will not be appropriate to reduce the refund amount in su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntention of Sri Vellapally. That was a case where the goods were excisable goods prior to March 1, 1987, though by virtue of an exemption notification, the rate of duty was nil. This does not mean that they were not excisable goods. They were excisable goods. Nil rate of duty is also a rate of duty. With effect from March 1, 1987, the said goods became excisable to duty at the rate of fifteen per cent ad valorem. It is in the above circumstances that the Court held, on the basis of Section 3 and Rule 9A, that though the goods were produced or manufactured prior to March 1, 1987, still they attracted duty at the rate prevailing on the date of their removal, i.e., fifteen per cent. Para-7 clearly brings out the ratio of the said decision. The....