9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1196 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - rejection of the refund on the ground that importer failed to comply with the requirements in terms of Notification No. 102/2007- Cus dated 14.09.2007. - Held that - there cannot be any dispute that the subject goods on their subsequent sale in the local market suffered local taxes namely VAT/CST. Therefore Special Additional duty of Customs (SAD) which was charged during the importation of the said goods cannot be held back by the Revenue. The quantum of SAD charged for this import goods has to be refunded to the appellant in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 102/2007 Cus dated 14.09.2007. The Revenue s objection that the appellant has not complied with mandatory condition of endorsement on the sale invoices that SAD is not available as credit cannot become a bar for sanctioning the refund to the appellant in this case when the facts and documents on record otherwise conclusively prove that goods were sold on commercial invoices where-under credit cannot be made available to the buyer(s) and it has also been established that on these goods local sales tax/additional CST has been paid during their sale in local market. - Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues involved:
Refusal of refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on imported goods. Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the rejection of the refund claim on various grounds. Firstly, it was argued that the intention of the Exemption Notification No. 102/07 is to refund goods that suffered local taxes like VAT when imported by paying 4% SAD. Denying the refund in such cases would result in double taxation. The appellant provided a self-declaration stating that the burden of 4% SAD was not passed on to the buyer, fulfilling the rule of unjust enrichment. Supporting documentary evidence was also submitted. Additionally, the rejection based on invoices not containing an endorsement regarding the inadmissibility of credit for additional duty of customs was deemed contrary to legislative mandate. 2. The appellant further argued for a liberal interpretation of the exemption notification, citing a Tribunal decision in Equinox Solution Ltd Vs CC (Import) [2011(272)ELT 310(Tri-Mum)]. It was emphasized that the fact that SAD was not passed on to the customer was undisputed, despite the impugned order's silence on this matter. 3. The Revenue, represented by the learned A.R., reiterated the findings of the lower Revenue Authorities in support of upholding the rejection of the refund claim. 4. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and documents, it was established that the imported goods were subsequently sold in the local market, attracting VAT/CST. The 4% SAD levied during importation was intended to be refunded under Notification No. 102/07-Cus when such goods were sold in the local market, subject to local taxes. This interpretation was supported by the CESTAT larger Bench decision in Chowgule & Co. Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CCE [2014 (306)ELT 326(Tri-LB)]. 5. The Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated that the subject goods had indeed suffered local taxes upon subsequent sale, making them eligible for the refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The objection raised by the Revenue regarding the absence of an endorsement on sale invoices was dismissed, as the facts and documents proved that the goods were sold on commercial invoices where credit was not available to buyers, and local sales tax/CST was paid on the sales. 6. In light of the discussions and relevant case laws, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant.
|
