Shyam Timber Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedbad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 102/2007 cannot be denied merely because the imported goods were of logs whereas the same were sawn and sold in DTA.
Facts- The appellants had filed refund claims of additional duty of customs which were sanctioned to the appellant vide various Orders-In-Original.
Based on the information gathered that Appellant had claimed refund of 4% SAD that had been paid at time of import of timber incorrectly by submitting sale invoice of timber imported under some other Bill of Entry, a search was carried out at the business premises of the appellants by the DGCEI. On the basis of the DGCEI’s investigation report, show cause notices were issued to the Appellants.
In adjudicating, the adjudicating authorities took the view that the appellants have submitted forged documents with the customs authority with a view to get the refund fraudulently. They did not declare the factual position and suppressed the material facts i.e. clearance of different timber which did not pertain to the Bill of Entry for which they claimed refunds, preparation of forged invoices etc.
The adjudicating authority passed the impugned orders by denying the benefit under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007 and ordered for recovery of erroneously granted refunds under provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 , ordered recovery of interest under provisions of Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalty u/s. 114A and 114AA of the Customs ACT, 1962.
Conclusion- Held that in the case of Agarwalla Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla, Tribunal held that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 102/2007 cannot be denied merely the imported goods were of logs whereas the same were sawn and sold in DTA. It was held that logs even after sawn, remains the same.
The Appellants complied with all the conditions of the above notification, and therefore, actions of the lower authorities for recovery of refund based on number of logs not mentioned in the invoices attached with the refund claim is not sustainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
All these appeals have been filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. KDL-CUSTM-000-APP-356 to 360-14-15 dated 28.08.2014 under which four Orders-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority have been upheld. Learned Adjudicating authority has rejected refund claims filed by the appellants under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007.
02. The facts of the case are that the appellants had filed refund claims of additional duty of customs which were sanctioned to the appellant vide various Orders-In-Original. Based on the information gathered that Appellant had claimed refund of 4% SAD that had been paid at time of import of timber incorrectly by submitting sale invoice of timber imported under some other Bill of Entry, a search was carried out at the business premises of the appellants by the DGCEI. On the basis of the DGCEI’s investigation report, show cause notices were issued to the Appellants. In adjudicating, the adjudicating authorities took the view that the appellants have submitted forged documents with the customs authority with a view to get the refund fraudulently. They did not declare the factual position and suppressed the material facts i.e. clearance of different timber which did not pertain to the Bill of Entry for which they claimed refunds, preparation of forged invoices etc. These facts come to the notice of the department only after initiation of investigation against them. By adopting such modus operandi they received amounts, which otherwise would not have been sanctioned to them and thereby they contravened the provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. Therefore, extended period of recovery of refunds so sanctioned erroneously to them were invoked in these cases. The adjudicating authority passed the following impugned orders by denying the benefit under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS., dated 14-9-2007 and ordered for recovery of erroneously granted refunds under provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 , ordered recovery of interest under provisions of Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalty under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs ACT, 1962.
