2023 (9) TMI 581 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs denied - rejection on the ground that the declaration required under para 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. is not endorsed on the invoices - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the Order-in-Original it is seen that the appellant has furnished all the necessary documents and the only reason for rejection of refund is that para 2(b) of the notification has not been complied.

The very same issue was considered by 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)] where it was held 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 - The decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS CC (IMPORTS) CHENNAI [2017 (12) TMI 1606 - CESTAT CHENNAI].

Thus, the appellant being a trader, the decision rendered by the larger Bench in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. will squarely apply - After appreciating the facts, evidence and following the above decision, it is opined that the rejection of refund claim is unjustified - the impugned order rejecting the refund is set aside - appeal allowed.