Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
2023 (3) TMI 750 - AT - Customs
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection of part amount observing that appellant has not satisfied the requirement as stipulated in para 2 (b) of the notification (endorsement as required under para 2(b) of the notification was not made, and in the invoices it was handwritten that ‘credit is not admissible on SAD’).
Whether the appellant is eligible for refund even though the requirement under condition 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 has not been complied?
HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the appellant-importer is a trader. In CHOWGULE & COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)], the Larger Bench has decided the issue holding that A trader-importer, who paid SAD on the imported .good and who discharged VAT/ST liability on subsequent sale, and who issued commercial invoices without indicating any details of the duty paid, would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus., notwithstanding the fact that he made no endorsement that “credit of duty is not admissible” on the commercial invoices, subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions stipulated therein.
Thus, the rejection of refund cannot be justified - the appellant is eligible for refund - appeal allowed.