Case Law Details
PP Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Observing that the adjudicating authority had not come to the conclusion that the product sold was entirely different and there was nothing on record to disbelief the Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that both the products were one and the same, Madras High Court has allowed the appeal against the CESTAT Order denying SAD refund. The refund was rejected by the department stating that the assessee had not adopted the same code while describing the product in the sale invoice. The Court noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had in its order stated that the assessee had used the generic description of the imported goods in the sales invoices and non-mentioning of grade will not change the imported goods.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
This appeal by the appellant/importer is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), dated 18.11.2016, in Final Order No.42290/2016.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
