2025-VIL-1814-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Rejection of refund claim – Sustainability – Appellant filed refund claim in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs for refund of 4% Special Additional Duty of Customs paid on import of Hot Dipped Galvanised Steel Wire – Adjudicating authority rejected refund claim filed by Appellant for non-fulfillment of condition in Para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007 – Lower appellate authority rejected appeal filed by Appellant – Whether Appellant is eligible for refund claimed in terms of Notification No.102/2007 – HELD – Lower authorities have found that sales invoices submitted by Appellant and randomly verified at buyers’ end did not contain mandatory endorsement as per condition in para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007. Basing on random verification of one sale invoice by Adjudicating authority, it cannot be concluded that sales invoices submitted by Appellant were not stamped with endorsement as per condition in para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007. Issue of compliance of para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007 came up for consideration before Larger Bench of this Tribunal in case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise. In said case, Larger Bench held that a trader-importer, who paid SAD on imported goods and discharged VAT/ST liability on subsequent sale and issued commercial invoices without indicating any details of duty paid would be entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007, notwithstanding fact that he made no endorsement that "credit of duty is not admissible" on commercial invoices. Judicial discipline requires that above judgment should be followed. Appellant is eligible for refund claimed. Impugned order rejecting refund claim is not proper and so ordered to be set aside – Appeal allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page