Akshay Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The present appeals arose from the rejection of two refund claims filed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007, seeking refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import. The Deputy Commissioner, through Orders-in-Original dated 08.10.2012, rejected refund claims of ₹2,51,046 and ₹2,63,572 relating to different imported goods. The rejection was based on alleged non-compliance with paragraph 2(b) of the Notification, citing absence of proper endorsement in sales invoices regarding non-admissibility of SAD credit and discrepancies between invoices submitted by the appellant and those obtained from buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these rejections through a common order dated 21.02.2014.
The appellant had imported goods on payment of customs duties including 4% SAD and subsequently sold them in the domestic market upon payment of VAT/Sales Tax. Refund applications were filed within time, accompanied by Bills of Entry, duty payment challans, sales invoices, VAT returns, and Chartered Accountant certificates establishing correlation between imports and subsequent sales, and certifying that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Despite this, the claims were rejected solely on the ground of non-compliance with the endorsement requirement under paragraph 2(b).
The appellant contended that all necessary documents were furnished, including original Bills of Entry and proof of VAT payment, and that the sales invoices contained the required declaration that no credit of SAD would be admissible to buyers. It was argued that minor variations in invoice format or presentation should not defeat a beneficial exemption and that substantial compliance with the Notification conditions was sufficient.
