2017 (4) TMI 315 - AT - Customs

Future sale of existing goods in India - denial on the ground that the goods imported were cleared later to the date of sales invoice - Held that - future sale of existing goods in India and in the custody of Customs is undeniable in absence of any contrary evidence to show that the appellant was dealer of similar goods not imported. In absence of any evidence to show the appellant s oblique motive, there cannot be suspicion to hold against the appellant - appeal allowed. Refund of SAD - CENVAT credit - there was no endorsement of the condition of the notification and no Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the goods covered by the sales invoice - Held that - Larger Bench of the Tribunal has already held in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) that such an endorsement may not be necessary since the invoice do not carry the duty element - appeal allowed. Appeal allowed in toto - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Future sales denied by authorities below without substantiated apprehension.
2. Denial of future sales based on goods cleared later than sales invoice date.
3. Legality of future sales under Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
4. Lack of evidence showing oblique motive or dealer status of appellant.
5. Endorsement requirement for Cenvat credit in sales invoice.
6. Interpretation of duty element declaration in invoice for credit availability.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of future sales being denied by the authorities below without any substantiated apprehension. The learned counsel argued that the denial was based on the goods being cleared later than the sales invoice date. However, it was highlighted that such denial lacks legal basis as future sales are not prohibited by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The adjudication was deemed to have no basis due to the absence of any enquiry result supporting the denial.

2. The legality of future sales under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was a crucial aspect considered in the judgment. It was emphasized that in the absence of any evidence showing the appellant's oblique motive or dealer status of similar goods not imported, there cannot be suspicion to hold against the appellant. The appeal was allowed based on the undeniable nature of future sales of existing goods in India and in the custody of Customs.

3. Another issue addressed in the judgment pertained to the requirement of an endorsement for Cenvat credit in the sales invoice. The appellant argued that there was no endorsement regarding the condition that no Cenvat credit is admissible for goods covered by the sales invoice. Reference was made to a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, which clarified that such an endorsement may not be necessary as the invoice does not carry the duty element. The judgment highlighted that non-declaration of duty in the invoice itself affirms the inadmissibility of credit, as per the Tribunal's decision.

4. The interpretation of the duty element declaration in the invoice for credit availability was a significant issue discussed in the judgment. It was noted that the non-declaration or non-specification of the duty element in the invoice would satisfy the condition prescribed under the relevant notification. The judgment allowed the appeal based on the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the interpretation of the duty element declaration in the sales invoice.

Overall, the judgment provided detailed analysis and clarification on various issues related to future sales, Cenvat credit endorsement, and duty element declaration in sales invoices, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.