9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained that duty for the four bills of entry were initially debited in DEPB script while filing the bills of entry i.e. on 31.05.2011 and the remaining duty was paid on the next day. The same was also easily verifiable from the documents submitted. There is no dispute that the appellant has paid the VAT on all the goods and No credit of Additional Duty of Customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 have been availed/shall be admissible is endorsed on the invoices. This being so, a case of unjust enrichment does not arise and the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 have been complied with. Hence, the impugned order rejecting refund of the subject 4 bills of entry is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AJIT KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Derrick Sam , Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the appellant M/s. Shriram Impex India Pvt. Ltd. against Order in Appeal No. C.Cus No.1564/2014 dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Shri Ram Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi filed a claim of refund for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid. The Lower Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund amount. Among several Bills of Entry upon which the refund was claimed and sanctioned, the department preferred an appeal with respect to 4 Bill of Entries i.e 3658339, 3658340, 3665432 and 3658338 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evidence that such duty not been passed on to the customers. The Charted Accountant s Certificate clearly corroborates the ledger accounts and the sales invoices with the relevant Bills of Entry. All this will substantially prove that the 4% SAD has not been passed on to the customers. Therefore, it would suffice the requirement of Circular No.6/2008 dated 28.04.2008 and 16/2009 dated 13.10.2008. The refund claim was correctly filed under Notification No.102/2007 and the Original Authority has properly appreciated the contents of the refund claim while sanctioning the same. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant has paid the VAT on all the goods and further all the local invoices contain an endorse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with. Hence, the impugned order rejecting refund of the subject 4 bills of entry is liable to be set aside even on merits. 5. 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 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 whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
