Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 347 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. Dated 14.9.207 - rejection on the ground that the appellant has not furnished Chartered Accountant's certificate so as to correlate the payment of VAT with the refund claim of the appellant, the sales invoices do not contain endorsement as required under 2(b) of the conditions stated in the notification, description of the goods given in the Bills of Entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices and also on the ground that the CHA inadvertently had stated the goods as 9200 sq. mt. instead of 9200 rolls. Rejection on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Chartered Accountant's certificate as required under the notification - Held that:- Since the authorities below have not discussed or verified the said Chartered Accountant's certificate and merely rejected finding that the certificate has not been produced, we are of the considered opinion that this issue requires to be remitted for verification of the Chartered Accountant's certificate - matter on remand. Rejection on the ground that the sales invoices do not bear the endorsement as required under condition 2(b) of the Notification - Held that:- The said issue stands covered by the decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)], where it was held that Since the object and purpose of the condition is achieved by non-specification of the duty element the mere non-making of the endorsement could not have undermined the purpose of the exemption - the rejection of refund on this ground is unjustified. Rejection on the ground that the description of the goods given in the Bills of Entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices - Held that:- So also the goods have been particularly mentioned with regard to their nature as to plain finish. This cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim since the goods sold are very much clear from the invoice. Refund has been rejected for the reason that the units of the goods is mentioned wrongly as 9200 rolls instead of 9200 square feet - Held that:- This was only an inadvertent error and the same cannot be a reason for rejecting the refund - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|