9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common, accordingly, these are taken up together for disposal. 3. In brief, the facts in the five Appeals are that the appellant had filed total five refund claims amounting to Rs. 10,11,041/- of 4% SAD paid at the time of import of goods, as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007. They were issued with five show cause notices proposing rejection of the same. On adjudication, all the refund claims were sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, Revenue filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, set-aside the orders of the adjudicating authority and allowed the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT/CST has been paid on the goods sold; it is also certified that the VAT/CST amount against each and every item/accessory could not be reflected on the respective sales invoices, even though was paid alongwith the main machine/kit supplied/sold to the customers. 5. Further, he submits that the statutory auditor has also categorically certified that the burden of the 4% SAD claimed as refund by the Appellant had not been passed on to their customers, but, absorbed by the appellants. He submits that the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the said amount has been included in the expenses of the company and charged to profit and loss account, thus the burden of the duty must have been passed to the customers is an erroneous find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the accessories, the commercial invoices do not reflect the description of the accessories in detail but enclosed therewith the packing list and its value included in the machine/kit. In the Chartered Accountant's Certificate a specific declaration has been made indicating that the value of the accessories, which are sold alongwith the main machine, suffered VAT/CST, even though the VAT amount was not shown separately against each of the said accessory/items. No contrary evidence has been recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to show that the VAT/CST was not paid on the imported goods in the impugned order except observing that VAT/CST amount is not mentioned against each of the imported items cleared/sold as such with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
