Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Pee Gee International vs Cc (Icd), New Delhi on 10 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
Date of hearing/decision:10.09.2013
Customs Appeal No.C/786/2008-Customs
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)CUS/303/2008 dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi).
M/s.Pee Gee International Appellants
Vs.
CC (ICD), New Delhi Respondent
Appearance: Rep. by none for the appellants.
Rep. by Shri R.K. Mishra, AR for the respondent.
Coram : Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Final Order No.57653/2013 dated 10.09.2013 Per D.N. Panda:
Although adjournment was granted on 23.7.2013 on the request of the ld. Counsel on the ground that some additional papers are required to be filed, today none is present. This shows that appellant is only keen to take advantages of adjournment to prolong the litigation. Therefore, matter was taken up with the assistance of Revenue.
2. Refund of Rs.5,76,180/- was claimed by the appellant on the ground that goods imported prior to issuance of the Notification No.102/2007 suffering additional customs duty entitles the appellant to get refund thereof when those are sold in the domestic market. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issue in para-5 of his order and apart from the finding that imports were made prior to issuance of the notification, VAT was also not paid by the importer. When he found that prior to the date of issue of the above notification no VAT was collected, he held that refund was not admissible. These two grounds were material for dismissal of appeal of the appellant.
3. It is settled law that when the benefit is granted by Statute, including a notification issued thereunder, the grant shall only be effective from the date of notification as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sunwin Technosolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi reported in 2011 (21) STR 97 (SC). Accordingly appeal of the appellant is dismissed appreciating that no benefit of statute can be granted before notification thereunder was issued, approving reasoning given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar ) ( D.N. Panda )
Technical Member Judicial Member
Ckp.
1