By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 21, 2013: THE appellantimported “Assorted Thickness Cold Rolled Steel Coils” of size viz.0.60mm, 1.0mm, 1.8mm and 2.0mm by paying Customs duty including SAD.

Thereafter, they filed a refund claim towards the SAD paid of Rs.11,98,080/-. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the ground that as per the invoices produced by the appellant the goods sold in the domestic market were of sizes 0.6mm, 0.7mm, 0.8mm, 0.9mm, 1.20mm, 1.50mm and 1.8mm and the same did not match with the imported goods. The lower appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the goods on which VAT has been paid do not match in description with the goods imported and, therefore, the appellant has not satisfied the department that goods sold and goods imported are one of the same and VAT liability has been discharged on the goods imported.

So, the importer is before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that the goods imported are of assorted sizes as can be seen from the descriptions given in the bill of entry and therefore, the description given in the domestic sales invoices show various thickness and hence the appellant is rightly eligible for the refund.

The Revenue representative submitted that the lower authorities have arrived at the correct decision and the order is required to be upheld.

The Bench observed -

“6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I have also perused the bill of entry dated 25/10/2011. The said bill of entry shows the description as “assorted thickness cold rolled steel coils” and the size is given as 0.60mm and 1.0mm. Only the length of the coil varies from 1000mm to 1050mm. If the appellant has cut the length of the imported coil and sold the same in the domestic market, only length can vary and not the thickness. The thickness of the imported goods are 0.6mm, 1.0mm or 1.8mm/2.0mm, whereas the goods sold in the domestic market shows the thickness to be 0.60mm, 0.70mm, 0.80mm, 0.90mm, 1.20mm and 1.50mm. Thus there is a mismatch between the goods imported and the goods sold in the domestic market. Therefore, lower authorities are right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not led any documentary evidence in support of his refund claim that the goods which are sold in the domestic market on which he had paid VAT are the same as those imported.”

Holding that there was no merit in the appeal, the same was dismissed.

(See 2013-TIOL-1552-CESTAT-MUM)