Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 74 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund of SAD - Conditions of notification no. 102/2007 - Refund claim was rejected by the department on the ground that appellants have failed to follow the condition 2(b) of the Notification and (b) the appellants have failed to discharge the burden of bar of unjust enrichment - Held that: - As pointed out by the Honrable Apex Court in Malwa Industries (2009 -TMI - 32788 - SUPREME COURT) the exemption Notification should be read liberally - he purpose of issuing the Notification is that the importer should not suffer SAD on the goods imported by them which have been imported for the purpose of resale and the proper ST/CST/VAT has been paid. SAD is to be paid by the importers as precaution measure to ascertain whether ST/CST/VAT has been discharge by the assessee or not. In this case, it has been clarified in the invoices which have been supported by the Chartered accountant certificate that the appellants have discharged the liability of Central service tax. Hence as per Notification no. 102/07, the appellants are entitled for the refund claim.