9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1528 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD under Notification No. 102/07 Commissioner rejected refund of SAD under provisions of Notification No. 102/07 on ground of unjust enrichment Held that - admitted fact that appellant have shown amount as receivable from Customs in their Balance-sheet as per certificate issued by C.A Evident from Sales Invoice that SAD has not been shown separately It is also not intention of Government to allow importer to recover 4% CVD from buyer as well as to claim refund of this amount from Customs In this view of matter, Commissioner has erred in holding that appellant have passed burden of CVD/SAD to buyer Appellant would be entitled to refund of SAD Thus, appeal allowed with consequential relief Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/07 rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment. Analysis: The appellant imported goods and resold them to Western Railway, claiming a refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/07. The claim was rejected due to unjust enrichment as the appellant declared no additional duty of customs levied on the invoice and passed on the SAD to the buyer. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The appellant argued that SAD was not passed on to the buyer, citing Circular No. 6/2008 stating the importer should not recover SAD from the buyer and claim a refund. The appellant requested setting aside the order and granting the refund. The Tribunal found that SAD was not passed on to the buyer, Western Railway, based on the absence of separate SAD in the invoice, appropriate buyer declaration, and VAT payment. The appellant deposited VAT as per the Sales Invoice and showed the amount as receivable from Customs in their Balance-sheet. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in concluding that the burden of SAD was passed on. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund of SAD with interest within 60 days. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that SAD was not passed on to the buyer, Western Railway. The appellant's compliance with VAT payment and documentation supported their claim for refund under Notification No. 102/07. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund with interest promptly.
|
