Allowed

M.P.Re-Cycling Co.Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai

CESTAT6 Mar 2018C/321/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that no time limit is prescribed for VAT payment. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order revoking SAD refund granted for goods sold after one year.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

M.P.Re-Cycling Co.Pvt.Ltd. vs Commissioner of… — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2018)

¶1

Appeal No. C/321 & 322/10

¶2

¶3

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I

¶4

Appeal No. C/321 & 322/2010

¶5

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 12 & 13/2010/MCH/AC/ CPARS/2010 dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I).

¶6

M/sM.P. Re-Cycling Co. Pvt. Ltd.	Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai	Respondent
Appearance:
None	for Appellant
Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR)	for Respondent

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI RAJU, MEMBERE (TECHNICAL)

¶9

Date of Hearing: 06.03.2018

¶10

Date of Decision: 06.03.2018

¶11

ORDER NO. A/ 85645 - 85646 /2018

¶12

Per: Archana Wadhwa

¶13

On matter being called, neither anybody appeared nor there is any adjournment request inspite of notice of hearing having been sent to the appellant well in advance. Accordingly, we have heard the learned AR and have gone through the impugned order.

¶14

As issue involved in both the appeal is identical, a common order is being passed.

¶15

Appeal No. C/321 & 322/10

¶16

¶17

The issue relates to refund of SAD, paid at the time of import of the goods in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 102/2007. The said notification allows refund of SAD paid at the time of import of the goods, on their subsequent sale, subject to the condition that proper Sales Tax/VAT stands paid.

¶18

The appellant filed the refund of SAD in terms of the said notification, which was granted by the original adjudicating authority. The order of the original adjudicating authority was challenged by the Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals), who reversed the same by observing that VAT was paid after one year from the date of payment of SAD.

¶19

We find that admittedly the goods were subsequently sold by the assessee on payment of VAT and the refund would become eligible only on the subsequent sale of the goods. There is no time limit laid down in the law. As such, we find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper and just. The same is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant, if any, in accordance with law.

¶20

(Dictated and pronounced in Court)

¶21

(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial)

¶22

Sinha

¶23

(Raju) Member (Technical)

M.P.Re-Cycling Co.Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Re-Cycling Co.Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Gopal Malpani vs Siliguri

Ms Eastern Rainwear vs Nhava Sheva (Appeal) - II

Corporation Bank vs Jaipur-I

Roshiban N R vs Cochin-cus

Bentec Organoclays P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai

Jsw Steel Ltd. vs Mumbai Export I

Mumbai Export I vs Tipson Cycles Pvt. Ltd.

Garva Enterprise vs Nhava Sheva