Redington House vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ...
- CitationAppeal No. 246 to 250 dated 19/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS(Appeals),Chennai]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The importer, having paid Special Additional Duty at importation under the option of Notification No. 102/2007, is entitled to refund of that duty on sale of the goods, and the department cannot insist that it should have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010 instead, where the Tribunal's earlier decisions in the same appellant's own case have already accepted the importer's choice of notification.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 246 to 250 dated 19/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS(Appeals),Chennai]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Redington House 'redington House', Centre Point- Plot No. 8 & 11(sp), Hiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy CHENNAI - 600032 TAMILNADU Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-cus C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms V. PRAMILA, ADV NO.A-3, ALSA CLAREMONT, 129,ST. MARY'S ROAD, CHENNAI - 600018 TN For the Appellant Mr. PAKSHI RAJAN, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 20/07/2015
Date of Decision: 20/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21665 / 2015
Per : ASHOK KUMAR ARYA
Heard both sides, appellant and the respondent.
2. The appellant claims that they had the option to claim the benefit of either Notification No. 29/2010 Cus dated 27.02.3010 or Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. They have chosen the option of claiming the benefit of Notification No. 102/07 dated 14.09.2007 under which they have paid SAD at the time of importation and after the sale of the goods, they claimed refund of the SAD, which they had paid at the time of importation. The respondent counters that the appellant should have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010 dated 27.02.2010 instead of opting to avail the benefit of Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. This plea of the respondent does not find favour on the face of the two decisions of the CESTAT, Chennai in the appellants own case vide 2014 (304) ELT 154 (Tri-Che)] and 2014(304)ELT 134 (Tri-Che)]. Considering these decisions, I find that the appellant is entitled to the refund which they are claiming of SAD totalling to Rs 1,20,927/- in terms of Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14/09/2007.
3. In the light of the above, the appellant succeeds in their appeal with consequential relief to them.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER
pnr
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free