9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble - Held that:- The main requirement is that the importer should not have charged SAD amount to their buyers which has not been disputed by the Appellate Authority. Further in Balance sheet for the year 2008 – 09, the said amount is appearing as “Refund received from Government” which is also not disputed - there is no reason to deny refund of 4% SAD to the Appellant as the requirement of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year ending 31.03.2008 the importer have not made any provision for the refund of 4% additional duty of customs as receivable. The importer has shown the same in purchase account that the importer / Appellant has failed to submit the certificate from the statutory Auditor/C.A. who certifies the annual account of importer stating that 4% SAD has not been passed from the importer to the buyer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal by the appellants. 2. The Ld. Counsel Shri Mukund Chouhan appearing for the appellant submits that the Balance Sheet for the year 2007-08 did not show the amount of refund as amount receivable from government because upto 31.03.2008 it was not clear that whether the refund claim is available to them or not. 3. In these circumstances the cost of SAD was debited in purchase account after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. (2007(219) E.L.T. 505) (Tri.- Mum), Paper Products Ltd. (2009(233) E.L.T. 227)(Tri.-Mumbai), Indian Oil Tanking Ltd. (2008(228) E.L.T. 572) (Tri.- Mum), BPL Ltd. (2008(221) E.L.T. 127) (Tri.- Bang.) , Equinox Solutions Ltd. (2017 (357) ELT 1041) (Tri.) and Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (301) ELT 675) (Tri.) 4. Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AD amount to their buyers which has not been disputed by the Appellate Authority. Further in Balance sheet for the year 2008 09 , the said amount is appearing as Refund received from Government which is also not disputed. In view of above facts we do not find any reason to deny refund of 4% SAD to the Appellant as the requirement of the conditions for allowing refund stands complied with. We t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
