2015 (2) TMI 1078 - AT - Customs

Refund of Special Additional Duty - sale invoices issued by them did not bear the endorsement no credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act 1975 shall be admissible - Held that - Issue is no more res integra and stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) . There are other decisions also laying down that even if said endorsement has not been made in the invoices, which also do not reflect the SAD element, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to them, on the said sole ground - I set aside the impugned orders - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007 - Endorsement requirement on sale invoices.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the issue of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007. The appellant's refund claim amounting to &8377; 1.71 lakhs and &8377; 2.99 Lakhs was rejected due to the absence of the required endorsement on the sale invoices. The endorsement 'no credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act 1975 shall be admissible' is mandated by para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The appellant argued that since the goods were sold under Central Excise invoices without reflecting SAD, the buyers could not avail credit, and thus, their claim should not be rejected.

The judge referred to the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, which favored the assessee in a similar issue. Additionally, the judge cited various other decisions supporting the appellant's position, emphasizing that the absence of the required endorsement on the invoices should not be a sole ground for denying the benefit of the notification. The decisions cited include Fossil India Ltd. Vs. CC, Novo Nordisk India Ltd. Vs. CC (ACC), R.K.G. International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs. CC, Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Imp), Equinox Solution Ltd. Vs. CC (Imp), CC (P), Amritsar Vs. Malwa Industries Ltd., and Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner.

In conclusion, the judge, based on the established decisions and precedents, set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in open court, resolving the issue of refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007 in favor of the appellant.