2018 (8) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1962 (the Act) challenges the order dated 1st November, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). By the impugned order, the respondent assessee's claim for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of customs was allowed. 2. The Revenue in appeal urges the following questions of law for our consideration : (a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not conside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t's Certificate as well as the Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, in charge of the respondent factory. 4. Ms. Cardozo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that this finding of the Tribunal is perverse. This as the invoice which was issued by the respondent at the time of the sale of the goods indicates that the Special Additional Duty of 4% has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s by the respondent assessee. In fact, the plain reading of the endorsement is that the buyer of goods from the respondent would not be entitled to avail of any credit of Special Additional Duty. Therefore, even if the invoice is taken as primary evidence, the endorsement therein is in accord with the certificates issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the Chartered Accountant. It does .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X