9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1311 - AT - CustomsRefund claim of SAD - two refund claims filed by assessee in the month of July,2013 - CBEC Circular no. 6/2008-CUSTOMS dated 28.04.2008 states that assessee is required to file one refund claim in one calendar month - invoice showing SAD not having the corresponding invoices accompanied with the Bill of Entry which evidence the payment of VAT by the appellant - Held that - to remand matter back to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact whether appellant has paid VAT / CST at the time of clearance of the goods by them for which they have paid SAD at the time of importation of the goods - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Refund claim of SAD under notification no. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007 rejected due to filing two refund claims in July 2013. 2. Applicability of CBEC Circular no. 6/2008-CUSTOMS dated 28.04.2008 on refund claims. 3. Requirement of corresponding invoices for SAD and payment of VAT/CST by the appellant. 4. Remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification. Analysis: 1. The appellant's refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) was rejected by the lower authorities based on the appellant filing two refund claims in July 2013, contrary to the provision in CBEC Circular no. 6/2008-CUSTOMS dated 28.04.2008, which mandates filing one refund claim per calendar month. However, the appellant filed the refund claim under notification no. 102/2007-CUS, which does not impose such a restriction. The Tribunal held that the rejection based on the circular was not valid, and the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of SAD paid by them. 2. The Tribunal addressed the objection raised by the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) regarding the lack of corresponding invoices showing SAD and the payment of VAT/CST by the appellant. To ensure justice and accuracy, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The purpose of the remand is to verify whether the appellant indeed paid VAT/CST at the time of goods clearance, for which they had paid SAD during the importation. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was referred back for further verification. 3. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the direction for the adjudicating authority to ascertain the appellant's payment of CST or VAT, essential for claiming the refund of SAD. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of proper verification and adherence to the legal requirements in such matters to ensure fairness and accuracy in the refund process. The remand order aimed to clarify the factual aspects related to the payment of VAT/CST and SAD by the appellant, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the refund claim. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the refund claim of SAD, the impact of CBEC Circular, the necessity of corresponding invoices, and the decision to remand the matter for further verification.
|
