2018 (6) TMI 946 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Denial of refund on the ground that the sale invoices do not contain the words no credit of additional duty of customs levied under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, shall be admissible against this invoice - Held that - Although the notification may have prescribed the words which should be included in an invoice, but the words are not magical in their scope since it is a procedural condition, as long as the intention is made clear, even by the use of other words, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of the refund of SAD. The non-declaration of SAD in commercial invoice is an affirmation that no CENVAT credit thereof, shall be available and the same satisfies the condition of the notification. Hence the respondent is justified in claiming the refund. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality of order for refunding Special Additional Duty (SAD) under a specific notification due to missing mandatory words in invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge by the Revenue against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under a specific notification. The respondent, an importer, had imported goods and subsequently sold them in the domestic market, making them eligible for a refund of SAD paid subject to fulfilling conditions in the notification. The Revenue rejected the refund claim due to missing mandatory words in the sale invoices. The Adjudicatory Authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the respondent to appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, prompting the Revenue's challenge in the High Court.

The appellant argued that the notification mandated specific words in the invoice for claiming the refund, which were missing in the respondent's invoices, justifying the denial of the refund. However, the High Court analyzed the legal requirements under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the need for specific particulars in invoices for claiming credit. It highlighted that non-declaration of duty in the invoice implies no credit availability, satisfying the conditions of the notification.

The High Court further clarified that while the notification specified certain words for inclusion in invoices, the essence of conveying the intention is crucial. As long as the intention is clear, even using different words, the benefit of refund cannot be denied to the assessee. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had based its decision on previous rulings, concluding that the non-declaration of SAD in the commercial invoice signifies no credit availability, meeting the notification's conditions and justifying the refund claim.

Ultimately, the High Court found the Tribunal's reasons for allowing the appeal legally valid, dismissing the Revenue's challenge as lacking merit. It concluded that no substantial question of law existed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.