9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry dated 18.1.2013 in terms of Customs Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.9.2007 as amended vide Notification No. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008 along with the relevant documents. The appellant submitted the importer's copy of the Bill of Entry in original and e-receipt as proof that the necessary duties including the 4% Additional Duty of Customs were paid and that the goods were cleared for home consumption. They have also submitted the sales invoices and VAT / CST paid challans / VAT / CST returns as proof that the goods imported under the said Bill of Entry were sold and that necessary VAT / CST were paid on such sale. The appellant also produced a certificate from their Chartered Accountant as required under Circular dated 28.4.2008. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "FDG-110" and "FDG-100" but the appellant wished to sell the same in the domestic market under their product name as a part of their business strategy. Accordingly, they have named the product as "PB-100-e" and "PB-100" respectively. The name "PB stands for "Precision Biometric" and hence, the appellant has required the foreign supplier to print the stickers as "PB-100-e" and "PB-100" and the same has also been supplied along with the imported product, which has been taken cognizance of under para 4 of the impugned order in original itself. They have filed necessary Chartered Accountant's Certificate as required under CBEC Circular No.06/2008 dated 28.4.2008. Para 3 of the said certificate clearly certifies for the purpose of Para 2(d) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with the refund claim to the effect that he has not passed on the incidence of 4% CVD to any other person. In the absence of a challenge to the said certificate by revenue it would not be possible to discard the same and reject the refund. Hence the rejection of the refund claim merely on grounds of the mismatch of description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and invoice, without challenging the certificate, is not sustainable, so long as the CA's certificate shows that the goods mentioned in the BE and commercial invoice as per the correlation statement are one and the same thing. 6. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Jhonson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in a similar situation held as follows; "10. The procedure contempl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
