Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 965 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - Endorsement on the Invoice - stamp required as per Para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007 is not endorsed - whether the direction for remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify and reprocess the refund claim is legal and proper? - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the department that when two invoices were called for by the review cell, such invoices did not bear the endorsement as required under para 2(b) of Notification. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the original authority after examining the invoices has made a finding that there are endorsements on the sales invoices which indicated ‘not eligible for CENVAT credit’. It is also noted by the original authority that the condition in para 2(b) has been fulfilled. 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)] has held that failure of the importer to endorse on the sales invoices that no credit of such additional customs duty would be admissible to buyers as stipulated under condition 2(b) of Notification cannot be a ground to deny the refund. Even though it is alleged by the department that two sales invoices did not bear the required endorsement, it is not established whether these invoices verified by Review Cell are the original invoices issued to the buyer by the appellant. So also there is no evidence to establish that the buyer had availed credit on these alleged invoices. There are no merits in the grounds alleged for remand of the matter. The order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) requires to be set aside - the order passed by the original authority sanctioning the refund is restored - appeal allowed.
|