9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claims have been rejected is failure to submit VAT returns - copies of VAT returns have not produced, the learned counsel submitted that returns were produced - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority - C/2651/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2012 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. Ms Neethu James, Advocate, for the appellant Mr Ravichandran, Suptd. (AR), for the Revenue [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy]. Appellant submitted seven claims for refund of Special Additional Duty paid at the time of import on the ground that the same was sold by them in India after payment of value added tax (sales tax) under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. The total amount claimed was Rs. 8,44,194/-. The appellant is before me sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the references made by field formation, clarifications or points raised are being issued. This makes it clear that both the circulars have to be taken into account. The order-in-appeal is dated 30.08.2010 and order-in-original is dated 14.07.2009 and both the lower authorities had the benefit of the second circular also. Since the second circular clarifies certain points in the first circular and provides further procedural relaxation after understanding the difficulties faced by the Trade and Industry, it was necessary for both the lower authorities to examine the refund claims in the light of the clarifications issued in the second circular and the instructions contained in both the circulars. In the second circular, there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pertinent to note that the CA certificate was issued in November 2008 by which time both the circulars were not available and therefore, obviously this is the reason why the CA omitted to explain as to how the CVD/SAD has not been passed on. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the refund claims on the ground that the CA certificate is not acceptable cannot be sustained. 3.4. The next ground taken is that there is no endorsement in some of the invoices that no credit of SAD/CVD can be taken based on such invoices. The learned counsel explained that the appellant had issued a commercial invoice and SAD/CVD was not shown separately and therefore, the receiver of the goods would not have been taken CENVAT credit at all. Endorseme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns have not produced, the learned counsel submitted that returns were produced. However, since the issue is being remanded for fresh consideration and in view of the submissions by the learned counsel that appellant will submit all copies of VAT returns for verification, this can be done at the time of de novo adjudication. 4. In view of the above observations, the matter is required to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of all the refund claims by taking into account the observations made in this order. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before the final order is passed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
