Case Law Details
ABB Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended. The refund claim was for refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by them at the time of import of the goods. The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned part of the refund but however, rejected some amount observing that appellant has not satisfied the requirement as stipulated in para 2 (b) of the notification. A
In Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE – 2014 (306) ELT 326 (Tri.-LB), the Larger Bench has decided the issue as under :
“5.4 In view of the factual and legal analysis as above, we answer the reference made to us as follows. 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 No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007, 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 above decision is rendered only in the facts of the case before us and shall not be interpreted to mean that conditions of an exemption notification are not required to be fulfilled for availing the exemption.”
In the other decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for appellant the Tribunal has held that the trader-importer would be eligible for refund even though the requirement under para 2(b) of the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 is not satisfied.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
