9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the payment of service tax / VAT on the imported goods that the invoices of sale would be sufficient proof of payment of appropriate VAT for the purpose of the said notification. The appellants have produced Chartered Accountant certificates in each of the appeals certifying the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold. The certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant have not been considered at all by the authorities below and consequently they have rejected the refund claim on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions of the notification which according to me is not tenable in law specifically when the Chartered Accountant have certified the correlation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challans as stipulated in the Notification. On verification of the description in the sales invoice submitted, it was observed that LLDPE granules was affixed with a rubber stamp below the description of the goods, whereas the imported goods were 'Lineral Low Density Polythylene' as per the description in the Bill of Entry. Thereafter the original authority rejected the refund and aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who also upheld the Order-in-Original. 4. Heard both sides and perused records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without examining the Chartered Accountant's certificates, rejection of refund claim is in violation of the binding instructions of the CBEC. He further relied upon the decision of the CESTAT, Chennai in an identical case reported in Damodar Trade Links Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai [Final Order No.42565/2017 dt. 25/10/2017] wherein it has been held that mere variations in description in this context is not sufficient to reject the refund claims. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned orders and submitted that there is a mis-match between the goods imported and the goods sold and therefore the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claims. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
