9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandatory for compliance being a trader who cleared the goods on the strength of commercial invoices. - The judgment went on to examine the genesis and object of the levy and the role of the exemption notification, which is very useful in understanding the issue and it was held that 'non-declaration of the duty in the invoice issued itself is an affirmation that no credit would be available. Therefore, non-declaration/ non-specification of the duty element as to its nature and quantum in the invoice issued would itself be a satisfaction of the condition prescribed under clause (b) of para 2 of the Notification 102/2007.' A similar view is also relevant for discrepancies noticed in the description of goods between the sales invoice and the Bill of Entry in the impugned matter as above. As rightly stated by the appellant, such minor discrepancies of description mentioned in the invoice vis- -vis the Bill of entry do not go to the root of the validity of the refund claim and are curable. Similarly the mismatch in the SAD vs VAT / CST paid caused by different rates at which the tax is paid cannot be held against the refund applicant. There is no allegation that the VAT / CST we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the goods As per Bill of Entry Description of the goods As per sales invoices A. Hakomatic B910 Industrial Cleaning M/C Hakomatic B910 Scrubber Drier machine B. Pre sweeping unit Pre-sweeping unit with Protecting bumper C. Lifting parts Lifting parts for pre-sweep As regards the discrepancy in the amount paid towards VAT / CST and SAD, he stated that the two taxes being administered differently the rates of taxes were also different, and refund could not be rejected due to a mismatch on this score provided the VAT / CST as applicable was paid. He relied on the judgment in Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs C. Ex., [2014-TIOL-1191-CESTAT-MUM-LB] in support of his stand. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3.2 The learned AR has reiterated the points given in the OIO and the impugned order and prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. Heard both sides. I find that the issue relating to the rejection of the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) refund claim alleging that there is mismatch with regard to the description of goods etc in the sales invoices when compared to the Bills of Entry is no longer res integra. The fact remains that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les tax at the time of first sale. The new levy will also not apply to inputs imported under export-promotion schemes. In addition, there may be other sectors eligible for exemptions. These would be examined and if considered appropriate notified separately. The rate of levy was subsequently reduced to 4%. All goods imported for subsequent sale were initially exempted from levy of SAD vide Sl. No. 11 of the Table Annexed to Notification No. 29/1998-Cus., dated 2-6-1998. The said exemption underwent many changes over the years and the present exemption is contained in Notification 102/2007-Cus. wherein the exemption is operationalised through a refund mechanism. Notwithstanding these changes, the object of the levy was to counterbalance the levy of local taxes on domestically produced goods on imported goods so that there is a level playing field between the two. However, when the imported goods are subsequently sold in the domestic market bearing the burden of local taxes, exemption is provided from SAD so as to neutralize the impact of double levy. This object and purpose of the levy and the exemption needs to be kept in mind while interpreting Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 5.2 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd take any other action deemed necessary. Regular cash inflows are the lifeline of a business and blocking legitimate claims on half-baked reasons does a great dis-service and should be avoided. 6. The Hon ble Madras High Court in its judgment in P.P. Products Ltd. v. Commissioner 2019 (367) E.L.T. 707 (Mad.), examined whether the Tribunal, in the face of documentary evidence produced by the appellant, was correct in setting aside the order of the lower Appellate Authority, holding that there was no correction between the imports and subsequent sales? It held as under; 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 porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
