9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1442 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus, dated 14.09.2007 - Co-relation between the imported goods and the goods could not be established - appellant claimed this to be mere procedural requirement and argued that refund cannot be denied on this ground - Held that - Refund of SAD paid on the imported goods is indeed a substantive benefit but to claim this, one must show that the imported goods are indeed sold which is the primary condition subject to which SAD refund can be sanctioned. Co-relation between the imported goods and the goods which are sold cannot be said to be a mere procedural requirement under the notification. Where there is no match, the claim is not admissible as per law settled by Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Proflex Systems 2017 (3) TMI 216 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under notification No. 102/2007-Cus denied due to discrepancies in invoices. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad dealt with an appeal regarding the denial of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) to importers of used MFD photocopier machines. The issue revolved around the conditions specified in notification No. 102/2007-Cus, dated 14.09.2007, which allowed for the refund of SAD paid on imported goods sold in the domestic market. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the refund of &8377; 12,360/- but denied &8377; 3,70,616/- due to various reasons outlined in a table, including discrepancies in model numbers, dates of invoices, missing sales claims, illegible descriptions, and quantity mismatches. The appellant contended that the denial of refund should not be based on minor discrepancies in the invoices, citing a precedent case. Specifically, they argued against the denial of &8377; 74,673/- due to slight variations in model numbers between the imported goods and those mentioned in the domestic invoices. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) emphasized the importance of meeting all conditions of the notification for refund eligibility. They highlighted the necessity of establishing a clear linkage between the imported goods and those sold domestically to prevent misuse of the SAD refund provision. After considering both arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly assessed the eligibility for refund. The Tribunal reiterated that proving the sale of imported goods in the domestic market is a fundamental condition for SAD refund. The lack of correlation between the imported goods and those sold was deemed more than a procedural requirement, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a specific case. Unlike the situation in a referenced case, where all conditions were met, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant in this case failed to demonstrate the necessary linkage, leading to the rejection of the appeal and denial of the SAD refund amounting to &8377; 3,70,616/-. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the SAD refund, emphasizing the significance of establishing a direct connection between the imported goods and the goods sold domestically as a crucial condition for refund eligibility, as per the legal precedent and the provisions of the notification. The appeal was consequently rejected, affirming the decision to deny the substantial SAD refund due to the discrepancies identified in the invoices.
|
