2013 (11) TMI 945 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - assessee cleared the goods on payment of VAT and filed a refund claim in terms of Notification No. 102/07-Cus, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellants has not made endorsement on the invoices as per condition 2(b) of the said Notification by the lower authorities - Held that - As no SAD is shown in the invoice which amounts that the endorsement as per condition 2(b) of the Notification, appellants are entitled for refund claim - Following decision of RUCHI ACRONI INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI 2010 (12) TMI 1018 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . Non-fixation of invoices with the stamp showing that no credit would be admissible to the purchaser is a requirement to be fulfilled for non passing of the credit to the said duty mentioned. If the appellants have not even mentioned SAD on the invoices, the purchasers is not in a position to avail the credit of the same, this purpose of notification is fulfilled - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Rejection of refund claim based on time bar and absence of mandatory stamp on invoices.
Interpretation of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus regarding the requirement of indicating no credit of additional duty of customs on invoices.
Applicability of the decision in Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd. v. CC (Import), Mumbai on the refund claim.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the appeal regarding the refund of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid by the appellant at the time of importing goods, as per provisions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing time bar and absence of the mandatory stamp on invoices indicating no credit of additional duty of customs. On appeal, the appellate authority favored the assessee on the time bar issue but rejected the claim due to the failure to specifically mention the non-admissibility of credit on the invoices, as required by the notification.

The appellants contended that their invoices did not show the SAD amount, preventing buyers from claiming credit, which was not disputed. The denial of the refund was solely based on the technicality of the missing stamp on the invoices. The Tribunal's decision in Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd. v. CC (Import), Mumbai was cited, stating that if the invoices show the SAD amount as 'zero,' it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of indicating that SAD has not been passed to buyers, entitling the importer to a refund.

Following the precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the notification is fulfilled if the invoices do not mention SAD, preventing buyers from availing credit. Therefore, the absence of the stamp indicating no credit would be admissible to the purchaser is a necessary condition for non-passing of the credit, leading to the allowance of the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The impugned order was set aside based on this interpretation and decision.