TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es around the claim of refund of 4% SAD paid in cash as the same being denied by Department on the grounds that such claim is erroneous in so far as two refund applications have been filed in the financial year for the same Bill of Entries under Notification No.102/2007 - Customs. 2. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the there is no dispute on the fact that the Appellant haves paid 4% SAD on the import of goods under four Bills of Entries; that the said goods have been sold in the domestic market on payment of appropriate sales tax/VAT; that the Appellants have fulfilled all requirements and conditions as enlisted under Notification No.102/2007 - Customs; and that the Appellant have filed for two separate refund applications. First being filed on 28/04/2012 for Rs. 58,779 which was granted post detailed verification and second claim filed on 04/01/2013 for Rs. 3,25,932/- which was granted vide Order in Original bearing No. 45/14 - 15 dated 14.06.2014. He further submits that the Department issued a fresh Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2015 giving rise to the current impugned Order in Appeal No. AHD/CUSTM/000/APP/1591-21-22) date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective Commissionerate." 4.1 We observe that the Department has applied the said condition stating that the Appellant has filed two separate claims on the same Bills of Entry. It has to be noted here that under the given circumstances the application of this procedural requirement seems trivial to the purposes of the said issue as in the present case the payment of 4% SAD was done through two mediums by DEPB Script and Cash which was the sole reason behind the Appellant filing two claims. The conditions under the said circular act as a procedural safeguard that can be differentiated based on the facts and circumstances of a case. It would be contrary to the essence of the circular to deny the substantial benefit of refund only on a procedural requirement when it is silent towards such issues like that in case of the Appellant. The scope of benefit entailed under a Notification cannot be curtailed solely based on the claims as made in the present case. It would render the effectiveness of a Notification redundant when all other essential conditions required for the said purposes have been adhered with which in the present case has been complied with by the Appellant. The intent o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the dents on the revenue thus caused. In order to deal with the menace of smuggling, the authorities are enabled to detect, conduct search and seizure, and if necessary, confiscate such smuggled goods, within the territory of India. 16. It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This composite rule is not stated in any particular judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of judgments emphasize that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted while some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal Statutes are to be liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that they are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent. A close scrutiny will reveal that there is no real contradiction amongst the judgments at all. The synthesis of the views is quite clearly that the general rule is stri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll be admissible. The importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs. The importer shall pay on sale of the said goods, appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be. The importer shall, inter alia, provide copies of the following documents along with the refund claim: (c) document evidencing payment of the said additional duty; (d) invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (e) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. 16. Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the said notification are contrary to each other as if within one year the importer does not sell the goods imported by him within one year of the payment of SAD and then his claim barred by limitation. Therefore, if the refund claim is to be filed within one year, how the importer be compelled to sell the imported goods within one yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... since the Sales Tax (ST) / Value Added Tax (VAT) is being paid on periodical or monthly basis, even in case of bills of entry where the entire quantity of goods are sold within a month, all such cases shall be consolidated in a single refund claim and filed with the Customs authorities on a monthly basis. In other words, there would be a single refund claim in respect of one importer in a month irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry (B/Es) processed by the respective Commissionerate." From the careful reading of the above para, it is clear that though the procedure is prescribed that there would be a single refund claim in respect of one importer in a month irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry. However, in the present case that the first claim was filed on 6/5/2013 for the quantity of goods sold. However the quantity covered under the present refund claim were unsold therefore these two bills of entry could not have been included in the first claim which was made on 6/5/2013. As regard the quantity of the present claim it was sold during the period 12/05/2013-20/05/2013. If the contention of the ld. lower authority is accepted and if the appellant is barred ....