9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has not complied with the condition at Para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The Adjudication Authority held that:- "7. Para 2(b) of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus Dt. 14.9.2007, stipulates that the importer shall specifically indicate in the sale invoices regarding the non-admissibility of Cenvat credit and the importer has failed to comply with the same. 8. The sale invoices have been raised prior to the "Out of Charge" given for the goods i.e prior to 28.09.2011. 9. The CA Certificate submitted by the importer does not rule out the case of unjust enrichment comprehensively as required vide Annex.III to the notification no. 102/2007." 2. Aggrieved by said order, the appellant filed an appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that:- "20. We, as noticed hereinbefore, have no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit thereof should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefor. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived therefrom by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby." Further the appellant relied on the following case laws; i. Equinox Solutions Vs. CC (2011 (271) ELT 310, CESTAT, Mumbai ii. Corporation Bank Vs. Saraswathy Abharanasala 2010 (18) STR 513 SC. 4. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 7. Heard the Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. We find that the issue involved is whether the appellant has fulfilled the stipulated conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. We find that the Adjudicating Authority in his findings held that the stipulated conditions for claim of refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 have been fulfilled and is also accepted the Chartered Accountant's Certificate with regard to the unjust enrichment. However, he has rejected the refund claim only on the ground that there is no specific declaration on the invoice with respect to the condition mentioned at para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007. We find that the appellant has sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. [Emphasis supplied] 9. The Jurisdictional customs officer i.e., the Adjudicating Authority observed that the declaration on the invoice reads as "Note-No Cenvat Credit is admissible" instead of specifically indicating 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", therefore rejected the refund claim. We find that the declaration made by the appellant on the sale invoice though is not as per the phrase used in the Notification it conveys the purpose of such required declaration. Hence rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
