9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit is not admissible on SAD ). Whether the appellant is eligible for refund even though the requirement under condition 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 has not been complied? HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the appellant-importer is a trader. In CHOWGULE COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ECHNICAL) Mr. Rohan Muralidharan, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. S. Balakumar, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) - For the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended. The refund claim was for refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by them at the time of import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter, while issuing the invoice for sale of the said goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible. . .. 3. In some of the commercial invoices the appellant had handwritten that credit is not admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue to be analysed is whether the appellant is eligible for refund even though the requirement under condition 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 has not been complied. It is not disputed that the appellant-importer is a trader. In Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (supra), the Larger Bench has decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption. 7. In the other decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for appellant the Tribunal has held that the trader-importer would be eligible for refund even though the requirement under para 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. is not satisfied. 8. After appreciating the facts, evidence and following the decisions of the Tribunal, we find that the rejection of refund cannot be justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
