TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant. The appeal has also been filed by Shri Naresh Aggarwal, Director of the appellant company against imposition of penalty. 2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant had imported timber log and paid SAD on the same. The appellant had cut and sawed the timber logs and thereafter sold the same. In terms of Notification 102/2007, the appellants were granted the refund of SAD. Subsequently revenue raised a Show Cause Notice seeking to recover the refund already sanctioned as erroneous refund on the ground that the item imported was timber logs whereas the item sold by the appellant was saw logs. There was also some allegations of mismatch of description and procedural violations of Notification 102/2007-Cus. 3. Learned couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¢ Orange Overseas P Ltd. 2016 (2) TMI 206 (Tri. Del.) • Overseas Polymers Pvt Ltd. 2021 (378) ELT 231 (Tri. Chennai) • PP Products Ltd 2019 (367) ELT 707 (Mad) • Shanti Enterprises 2016 (343) ELT 446 (Tri. Del.) 3.3 He further raised the issue of limitation by pointing out that the show cause notice has been issued on 02.07.2012 while the refunds were sanctioned during the period 17.06.2008 to 10.06.2009. He pointed out that the demand is clearly barred by limitation. 4. Learned Authorized Representative relies on the impugned order. 5. We have considered rival submission. We find that the primary objection raised in the instant case is that the appellant have sold timber after cutting and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transport/movement of timber. The said fact itself would belie the stand of the Revenue. We, therefore, take the view that a mere conversion of imported logs in the Sawn Timber without loss of identity of the original product would not deprive the importer of the benefit of the exemption notification. 3. The appeals of the Revenue, therefore, are dismissed. The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are affirmed." Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat reported in 2014 (302) ELT 519 (Guj.) wherein following was observed: "34. It is an undisputed position that the respondents imported the goods after paying SCVD. At the time of its sale in the local market, they also paid local taxes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are not registered dealer or manufacturer and therefore, the question of taking credit on any invoices issued by them does not arise. Moreover, he has also relied on the decision in the case of Equinox Solution Ltd. 2011 (273) ELT 310 (Tribunal) wherein following has been observed. "6. To deal the first issue, I find that as per the condition 2(b) of the Notification no. 102/07, the appellants are required to make endorsement on the invoice that the SAD has not been passed on to the buyer. The ld. advocate has contended that the assessee is to avail the credit on the strength of invoice issued under the provisions of Central Excise Law/Customs Law/Service Tax laws, as per the provisions of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification No. 102/07, the appellants are entitled for the refund claim." We find that since the appellant is not a registered dealer, therefore the question of taking credit on the invoices issued by them does not arise. 7. Next issue raised by revenue relates to non-mention of Bills of Entry number on the invoice and mismatch of description and number of pieces on the invoices and bills of entry. In grounds of appeal it has been clearly indicated that stock requests duty certified by Chartered Accountant was produced at the time of filing refund. In the case of Overseas Polymers 2021 (378) ELT 231, in a case involving minor variations has been observed: "5. The issue is the rejection of the refund claim alleging that there i....