9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for being entitled for refund of SAD, they being, (i) document evidencing payment of the said additional duty; (ii) invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. The adjudicating authority appears to have done a thorough scrutiny of the documents and granted refund in full. In respect of the remaining portion, the only reason for rejection is that the appellant has not adopted the same code while describing the product in their sale invoices. The explanation offered by the appellant/importer is that the numbers which followed the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), dated 18.11.2016, in Final Order No.42290/2016. 2.The above appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Single Member of the Tribunal was justified in hearing the matter relating to the claim of exemption from the Special Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus? (ii) Whether the Tribunal, in the face of documentary evidence produced by the appellant, was correct in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, holding that there was no correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 13.10.2008; and 18/2010- Customs dated 08.07.2010. The application filed by the appellant/importer was scrutinised by the adjudicating authority and the claim made by them was examined on the conditions stipulated in the notifications, more particularly, as contained in Notification No.6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008. The adjudicating authority accepted the claim for refund partially, and by Order-in-Original dated 24.11.2014, sanctioned a sum of ₹ 10,78,622/- as refund and rejected the claim for refund to the tune of ₹ 5,72,251/- on the ground that the product sold by the appellant did not match with the product imported by the appellant. 6.The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard, the leaned counsel has drawn our attention to Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. 10.We find that there are three documents which the importer has to produce for being entitled for refund of SAD, they being, (i) document evidencing payment of the said additional duty; (ii) invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. The adjudicating authority appears to have done a thorough scrutiny of the documents and granted refund for substantial portion of the claim. In respect of the remaining portion, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that the appellants have used the generic description of the imported goods in the sales invoices and non-mentioning of grade will not change the imported goods different. Hence, the goods imported and the goods sold are one and the same and are co-relatable. The lower authority has not issued any DM or PH to the appellants for making the deficiencies good or to make any submissions. The department has not proved that the goods sold are different from the goods imported. The lower authority has not disputed the fulfillment of the other substantive conditions of the notification by the appellants. Rejection of partial amount of refund on this flimsy ground is not sustainable. 12.The finding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
