9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1277 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - denial on the sole ground that the appellants have made an endorsement in the invoice as regards non-passing of the credit of SAD, the said endorsement is not in the format prescribed in the notification - Held that - It is not a case of non-endorsement. There is admittedly an endorsement on the invoices, thus satisfying the conditions of the notification. Difference in use of language cannot be adopted as a reason for denial of the refund of SAD. The issue stands decided 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) , where it was held that non-declaration of SAD in commercial invoice is affirmation that no cenvat credit thereof would be available. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) denied due to non-compliance with prescribed endorsement format in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Endorsement Format: The main issue in this appeal was the denial of the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) to the appellants based on the format of the endorsement made in the invoices regarding non-passing of the credit of SAD. The Revenue objected to the language used in the endorsement, stating it did not match the format prescribed in the notification. 2. Judicial Examination: The judicial member examined the invoices and noted that they did contain an endorsement indicating that no credit of SAD would be available to the buyer. Despite the Revenue's objection to the language used in the endorsement, the member found that previous Tribunal decisions supported the view that even if the endorsement language differed from the prescribed format, as long as the buyer could not avail the cenvat credit, it constituted sufficient compliance with the notification's condition. 3. Precedent and Tribunal Decisions: The member referred to various Tribunal decisions, including the cases of Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai and Equinox Solutions Ltd. Vs. CC (Import) Mumbai, where the Tribunal had held that showing SAD as "zero" or not declaring it in the commercial invoice was enough to indicate that no cenvat credit was available. The Larger Bench decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE further supported the view that non-declaration of SAD in the invoice affirmed the unavailability of cenvat credit, satisfying the conditions of the notification. 4. Decision and Conclusion: Applying the principles established in the aforementioned decisions to the present case, the member concluded that the presence of an endorsement on the invoices, even if the language used differed from the prescribed format, fulfilled the conditions of the notification. Emphasizing that the endorsement was a procedural condition aimed at achieving a specific purpose, the member held that the difference in language could not be a valid reason to deny the refund of SAD. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
|
