2026 (4) TMI 1599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on the Silk fabrics imported by the Appellant. 2. Heard Shri S. Murugappan, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Vineet Goyal, ld. Departmental Representative for the Respondent; perused the documents placed on record including the orders of lower authorities carefully and we have also gone through the decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 3. A perusal of the Order-in-Original No.36231/2015 dated 27.03.2015 reveals that the Appellant filed a Bill of Entry on 21.01.2012 upon import of Silk fabrics, which was assessed to duty by classifying the goods under CTH 5007 and the Appellant also claimed the benefit of SAD vide Sl.No.50 of Customs Notification No.20/2006-Cus. A Show Cause Not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected in lieu of VAT/Sales tax. The goal therefore is to provide protection to domestic industries from the impact of cheaper imports. 4. The contention of the Ld. Advocate as could be seen from the Grounds of Appeal as well as the submission / synopsis filed during the course of arguments by the Appellant, is that primarily there was an exemption for payment of VAT under U.P. VAT Act and, therefore, SAD would not be leviable. Moreover, the assessment was only provisional on account of the dispute relating to levy of countervailing duty and, therefore, the demand raised, confirmed and upheld in the Order-in-Appeal under Section 28 ibid cannot sustain. It is the further case of the Appellant that when assessment is provisional, it remains....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med benefit of Notification No.20/2006, there is also no dispute that when the Bill of Entry was filed for the goods in question, change in law (w.e.f. 08.04.2011) was already in place, which changed the scenario by removing the exemption. This means that even as on the date of import, the exemption of 4% SAD stood deleted thereby making the Appellant liable; it is a different matter that the Appellant continued to claim exemption for the reasons best known to them. Going by the statute, there was a liability on the part of the importer i.e. Appellant and hence, prima facie it appears that the demand of short-levy is justified. 8. Statute also provides for claiming refund of SAD provided the claimant makes the payment of SAD only then th....