2015 (10) TMI 94 - AT - Customs

Special Additional Duty Refund - Appellant filed refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus., for 4% SAD of Customs Duty Refund was rejected by original authority on ground that original sale invoices were not submitted and invoices so issued do not bear declaration regarding non-admissibility of Cenvat credit by buyers Held that from clarification of Board it was clear that appellant has complied with Condition No. 2(e) (ii) of Notification 102/2007-Cus, therefore, appellant cannot be insisted upon to submit original invoices Refund claim should not have been rejected on this ground As importer was selling goods to individual customer and from various cities and showrooms, it was obvious that entire invoices were practically not possible to be produced Fact, that appellant was neither registered dealer under Central Excise for passing on Cenvat credit nor goods was Cenvatable items Thus established by facts that Cenvat credit was neither passed on nor availed by buyer Condition of endorsement stand fulfilled Therefore, there was no violation of any condition of Notification 102/2007 Impugned order set aside Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus; Rejection of refund claim based on non-submission of original invoices and lack of endorsement of non-admissibility of Cenvat credit on sale invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus for 4% SAD of Customs Duty due to missing original sale invoices and lack of Cenvat credit endorsement on the invoices. The appellant, an importer, argued that soft copies of retail invoices were submitted, complying with Circular No. 16/2008-Cus, and as a non-registered dealer, Cenvat credit was not applicable as goods were consumer items. The appellant cited tribunal judgments supporting their position.

The Assistant Commissioner contended that non-compliance with notification conditions justified the refund rejection. The Tribunal analyzed the dispute, noting that soft copy submission sufficed per Circular No. 16/2008-Cus, relieving the appellant from providing original invoices. Regarding Cenvat credit endorsement, the Tribunal emphasized that as the appellant was not a registered dealer, Cenvat credit was neither passed on nor availed, aligning with tribunal precedents.

Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal reiterated that the purpose of the endorsement was to prevent double benefits, clarifying that non-registered dealers like the appellant were not obligated to provide Cenvat credit on sale invoices. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's goods were consumer items, making Cenvat credit inapplicable. The Tribunal highlighted that denial of substantive benefits due to technical infractions was unwarranted, allowing the refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the lower authority's decision, ruling in favor of the appellant due to compliance with Notification conditions and the absence of Cenvat credit applicability. The judgment emphasized the liberal interpretation of exemption notifications and upheld the appellant's entitlement to the refund claim, subject to the test of unjust enrichment.

Outcome:
The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief as per the law.