2023 (9) TMI 581 - AT - Customs

Refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs denied - rejection on the ground that the declaration required under para 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. is not endorsed on the invoices - HELD THAT - On perusal of the Order-in-Original it is seen that the appellant has furnished all the necessary documents and the only reason for rejection of refund is that para 2(b) of the notification has not been complied. The very same issue was considered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CHOWGULE COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) where it was held 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 - The decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS CC (IMPORTS) CHENNAI 2017 (12) TMI 1606 - CESTAT CHENNAI . Thus, the appellant being a trader, the decision rendered by the larger Bench in the case of Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. will squarely apply - After appreciating the facts, evidence and following the above decision, it is opined that the rejection of refund claim is unjustified - the impugned order rejecting the refund is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this judgment is the compliance with para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. regarding the refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs.

Summary:
The appellant filed refund claims for the Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The original authority rejected the claims for non-compliance with para 2(b) of the notification, as the required declaration was not endorsed on the invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that as a trader, they are not eligible to take cenvat credit and pass it on to another. It was contended that the refund was rejected due to insufficient document production. The appellant relied on a decision by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Department supported the findings of the impugned order.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that all necessary documents were furnished by the appellant, and the sole reason for rejection was the non-compliance with para 2(b) of the notification. The Tribunal referred to a decision by a Larger Bench in a similar case, which clarified the requirements for taking credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, being a trader, was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus., even without endorsing the credit in the commercial invoices. Following the precedent set by previous cases, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim was unjustified, and the appellant was eligible for the refund.

Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.