9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, being refund of 4% SAD levied under Sec. 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for their import of 'Photofinishing equipments' in terms of Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.9.,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, Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appropriate CST @ 2% and cleared the goods. For the exemption from SAD under Notification No. 102/2007 what is relevant is as to whether the VAT or CST has been paid, which they have done. The 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 enclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th 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 this ground was not warranted. As 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 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
