2019 (8) TMI 884 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - refund claim rejected on the ground that the sale invoices submitted with the claim has not been either printed or stamped with endorsement that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of additional duty of customs paid as per sub section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act shall be admissible - condition 2(b) of the N/N. 102/2007-Cus. - HELD THAT - The appellant had produced the copies of the invoices generated from the computer which contains the required endorsement as provided under condition 2(b) of N/N. 102/2007. Further, the price shown in the sale invoice was a consolidated one and therefore nobody would be able to avail any credit either. Further, the appellant had produced the letters from the buyers who have categorically stated that they have not availed any credit on those invoices. When the price shown in the sale invoice is consolidated one and the duty paid on import had not been shown separately, there is no possibility of anyone taking credit of duty paid and this in a way comply with the conditions of the N/N. 102/2007. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim for special additional duty paid on imported teak wood for resale in the Indian market.
- Interpretation of condition 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus regarding the required endorsement on sale invoices to claim refund.
- Consideration of whether the invoices submitted by the appellant met the legal requirements for claiming the refund.
- Application of relevant case laws in determining the validity of the appellant's refund claim.
- Analysis of whether the consolidated value shown in the sale invoice fulfilled the conditions for claiming credit of duty paid.

Analysis:

The appeal in question challenges the rejection of a refund claim for special additional duty paid on imported teak wood intended for resale in India. The appellant imported the goods in 2016 and claimed a refund of the duty paid as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Customs Department rejected the refund claim due to the absence of a specific endorsement on the sale invoices, as mandated by condition 2(b) of the notification. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on this deficiency.

The appellant contended that the impugned order failed to consider crucial facts and legal aspects. The appellant argued that the invoices, although computer-generated, contained the necessary endorsement. Additionally, the appellant provided declarations from buyers confirming that they did not claim any credit on the duty paid. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the argument that procedural lapses should not hinder substantive benefits.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found that the invoices did meet the endorsement requirement specified in the notification. The Tribunal also noted that the consolidated value in the sale invoice made it impossible for anyone to claim credit on the duty paid separately. Moreover, the letters from buyers explicitly stating their non-claim of credit further supported the appellant's case. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions that aligned with the appellant's position, emphasizing that procedural compliance was achieved through the consolidated value representation.

In light of the above analysis and the precedents cited, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantive entitlements over procedural irregularities when fulfilling the conditions for claiming duty refunds.