9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n acknowledged by the Tax Department. Denial of refund on the ground that no endorsement on the sales invoices by affixing seal or stamp has been made indicating that CENVAT credit has not been availed - HELD THAT:- The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CHOWGULE COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] had held that appellant is entitled to SAD refund even if no endorsements are made on the commercial invoices. Whether refund of SAD is admissible under Notification No.102-/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007 when VAT was exempted on imported goods? - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in appellant s own case on similar set of facts by the Chennai B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said refund claim was rejected on the ground that no endorsement on the sales invoices by affixing seal or stamp has been made indicating that CENVAT credit has not been availed and also the invoices did not reflect in the VAT Returns filed and, also they were not attested by the Chartered Accountant or receipt of the same have not been acknowledged by the Tax Department. 3. None present for the appellant. Heard learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue. 4. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs C. EX.: 2014 (306) E.L.T. 326 (Tri. - LB) at para 5.4 which is reproduced below, had held that appellant is entitled to SAD refund even if no endorsement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for refund when the goods are exempted from levy of sales tax/VAT is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in Gaxal Overseas (supra) observed as under: 4. We have considered the contention of ld. DR and also perused the refund papers. Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 as amended allowed refund of SAD subject to the condition that the importer shall pay appropriate sales tax or VAT, as the case may be. In the present case, the appropriate sales tax or VAT being NIL the appellants cannot be said to have violated the said conditions of the said notification inasmuch as it cannot be said that they have not paid appropriate sales tax/VAT. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
