9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation sheet. HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the appellant had submitted sales invoices and VAT / CST paid challans / VAT / CST returns as proof that the goods imported were sold and that necessary VAT / CST were paid on such sale along with Chartered Accountant s certificate and correlation sheet. The rate of duty CST was paid is not relevant so long as it has been paid correctly at the effective rate. In this context the CA not certifying the invoices issued by the appellant for movement of the said imported goods to the respective buyers was a curable defect. With the Original Authority expressing his satisfaction with the description of the goods being made the claim could very well have been verified and the rejection of refund on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 as amended along with relevant documents. They have also submitted sales invoices and VAT / CST paid challans / VAT / CST returns as proof that the goods imported were sold and that necessary VAT / CST were paid on such sale along with Chartered Accountant s certificate. After due process of law, the lower authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that there is discrepancy in description of the goods imported and the tax invoice and the endorsement as per condition in para 2(b) of Notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 is not correct. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the Order in Original. Hence the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Ms. J. Mercy, learned Counsel appeared for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Counsel in her written submissions submitted during the hearing relied on the following notification/ circular/ public notices issued by the government/ customs in respect of the 4% Additional duty of customs refund, mentioned below. a. Board Circular No. 354/129/2007-TRU dated 14.09.2007. b. Board Circular No. 6/2008 dated 28.04.2008. c. Board Circular No. 16/2008 Cus dated 12.10.2008. d. Policy Circular No. 22/2009-2014 dated 03.02.2010. e. Public Notice No. 44/2009. However, copies of Circular/ PN at Sl. no. 4 and 5 were not enclosed and hence could not be examined. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the impugned order may be set aside with consequential relief. 3.2 The learned AR has reiterated the points given in the OIO and the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the endorsement in the invoice not being worded properly the matter was examined by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise reported in 2014 (306) ELT 326 (Tri. LB) and it was held that in respect of a commercial invoice, which shows no details of the duty paid, the question of taking of any credit would not arise at all. Therefore, non-mention of the duty in the invoice issued itself is an affirmation that no credit would be available. This being so, the condition prescribed under clause (b) of para 2 of the Notification 102/2007 stood satisfied. Further there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation against the appellant. 7. In the circumstances, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
