2023 (3) TMI 750 - AT - Customs

Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection of part amount observing that appellant has not satisfied the requirement as stipulated in para 2 (b) of the notification (endorsement as required under para 2(b) of the notification was not made, and in the invoices it was handwritten that credit is not admissible on SAD ). Whether the appellant is eligible for refund even though the requirement under condition 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 has not been complied? HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the appellant-importer is a trader. In CHOWGULE COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , the Larger Bench has decided the issue holding that A trader-importer, who paid SAD on the imported .good and who discharged VAT/ST liability on subsequent sale, and who issued commercial invoices without indicating any details of the duty paid, would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus., notwithstanding the fact that he made no endorsement that credit of duty is not admissible on the commercial invoices, subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions stipulated therein. Thus, the rejection of refund cannot be justified - the appellant is eligible for refund - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves a refund claim under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended, specifically regarding the eligibility for refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import of goods. The main issue is whether the appellant, a trader, is entitled to the refund despite not fulfilling the requirement stipulated in para 2(b) of the notification.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim which was partially rejected by the refund sanctioning authority citing non-compliance with para 2(b) of the notification. The appellant argued that they had inadvertently omitted the required endorsement in some commercial invoices but had handwritten the necessary statement on others to indicate that no credit of additional duty of customs was admissible. The appellant's counsel relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, where it was held that a trader-importer fulfilling certain conditions would be entitled to the exemption under the notification even without the specific endorsement on commercial invoices.

Decision:
After considering the arguments and precedents cited, the Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim was unjustified. The Tribunal held that the appellant, as a trader-importer who had paid SAD on imported goods and discharged VAT/ST liability on subsequent sales, should be eligible for the refund despite the lack of the required endorsement in some invoices. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The decision was pronounced in open court.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.