2021 (8) TMI 958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER Present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2020-21 dated 11.05.2020. The facts relevant for the adjudication, in brief are as follows: That the appellant is engaged in the import and trading of goods of wooden flooring. He imported the product wooden flooring vide Bill of Entry No. 7291....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue is no more res integra as has already been settled by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in [2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del)]. It is further submitted that the Notification No. 102/2007 had no mention of time limitation. It was only after the Notification was amended vide another notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 that one ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tative that the decision of Sony India Ltd. (supra) and Pee Gee International (Supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as imported goods were sold substantially in the year 2016 itself. Impressing upon no illegality in the order appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, I am of the opinion as follows: In te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ht of refund has even accrued." 6. Thus it stands clear that relevant time for seeking refund of SAD is the date when the imported goods have been sold. It is an admitted fact that substantial quantity of imported goods was sold by the appellant in the year 2016 itself under the invoice No. R1/240 dated 22.12.2016. Output VAT on such sale was also charged and was paid vide State Government trea....