9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim of SAD has been rejected is that the original documents regarding payment of VAT/CST and correlation of VAT/CST challans with the import documents has not been given. The appellant's contention is that they can satisfy the original adjudicating authority in respect of all the points but they were not given the opportunity. In view of this, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority, who shall decide the matter after hearing the appellants. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision after hearing the appellants on all the points raised in the deficiency memo - Decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been sold on payment of VAT/SAD. In this case, when the refund claims were filed, a deficiency memo was issued to the appellant on 18.10.2012 mentioning various deficiencies - (a) the original invoices do not have the declaration that no credit of SAD would be admissible, (b) original VAT/CST challans, showing payment of VAT/CST have not been produced, (c ) no certificates co-relating the payment of VAT/CST in respect of the goods imported issued by a Chartered Accountant/statutory order was produced. The appellant were directed to appear before the sanctioning authority on 25th 26th of October, 2012. Since the appellant did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner and their reply the deficiency memo was also not submitted with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that though the appellant had filed their submissions on 12.11.2012, the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order rejecting the claim on 30.10.2012 and it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant, that this denial of natural justice has also been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, that all the conditions for refund of VAT/SAD as mentioned in the exemption notification no.16/08-Cus have been satisfied, that since in the sales invoice issued by the appellant, SAD has not been mentioned, no declaration regarding non-admissibility of Cenvat Credit was required, and on the basis of those invoices, the buyers could not avail Cenvat Credit of the SAD, that in view of this, one of the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority were photocopies of the sales invoice and as such, it is not known as to whether the original invoices were bearing the declaration to the effect that no credit of SAD Revised under Section 3(5) of the Customs Act would be admissible. He therefore pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. From para 4.4. of the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is clear that the order of the original adjudicating authority was ex parte order without hearing the appellant in respect of the points raised in the deficiency memo. Moreover, ongoing through the sales invoices, I find that none of the invoices mention the SAD. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
