2018 (6) TMI 529 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 - rejection on the ground that the invoices under which they were sold, did not bear the endorsement to the effect that no CENVAT credit would be admissible to the buyer - Held that - The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , has held that non-declaration the commercial invoice is only a procedural lapse in as much as such an invoice is, in any case ineligible under Rule 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for the purpose of availing of credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed three appeals related to the rejection of a refund claim of SAD due to invoices not bearing a specific endorsement. The Tribunal cited a previous decision stating that non-declaration on the invoice is a procedural lapse and cannot be a basis for denying credit. The impugned order was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.