9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1606 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - rejection on the ground that there is no endorsement in the invoices to the effect that no credit has been availed in respect of the imported goods as required under para 2(b) of the N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Held that - The issue is decided in the case of NARASINGH DASS & CO. (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS., TRICHY & CHENNAI 2017 (4) TMI 315 - CESTAT CHENNAI , wherein reliance placed in Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) which has held that such an endorsement may not be necessary since the invoice do not carry the duty element - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Rejection of refund of SAD due to lack of endorsement in invoices regarding availed credit.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI pertains to the rejection of a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) based on the absence of an endorsement in the invoices confirming that no credit was availed for the imported goods. The original authority had denied the refund citing non-compliance with para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. The lower appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the filing of appeals. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate, Shri M. Karthikeyan, argued that the issue had been settled by various decisions, notably the Tribunal's Larger Bench ruling in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC & CE - 2014 (306) ELT 326 (Tri.-LB), which was subsequently followed in other cases. Conversely, the Learned Additional Commissioner supported the impugned order. Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the issue had already been conclusively addressed by the decisions referenced by the appellant's counsel. In line with the principles established in those cases, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, granting any consequential relief as per the law. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the Bench comprising Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Member Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar (Member Technical).
|
