Appeal Granted for Duty Refund despite Declaration Issue

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund of duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Despite technical non-compliance with the declaration requirement, the appellant, not being a registered dealer, was entitled to the refund as they had paid Special Additional Duty of Customs and Sales Tax/VAT. The decision emphasized that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural or technical infractions, aligning with previous Tribunal rulings on similar cases and establishing the appellant's eligibility for the refund, subject to the unjust enrichment principle.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim for Special Additional Customs Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus rejected due to non-declaration on sale invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant imported goods and paid import duty, including Special Additional Duty of Customs, subsequently selling the goods and paying VAT/Sales Tax. The refund claim for Special Additional Customs Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was rejected due to the absence of a specific declaration on sale invoices as required by para 2(b) of the Notification. The lower appellate authority upheld the rejection, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's consultant argued that as they were not registered dealers for issuing Cenvatable invoices, the requirement for the declaration should not apply to them. He contended that the invoices did not detail the Customs duties paid, making it impossible for buyers to avail Cenvat credit. Citing precedents, the consultant urged that the non-declaration was a technical infraction and should not bar the refund claim. The Tribunal noted that the purpose of the declaration was to prevent double benefits, but the appellant, not being a registered dealer, was not eligible to issue Cenvatable invoices. The invoices also lacked information on the SAD paid, further precluding Cenvat credit. Despite the technical non-compliance, the Tribunal held that the appellant, having paid SAD and Sales Tax/VAT, was entitled to the refund under the Notification, subject to the unjust enrichment principle.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund of duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, emphasizing that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural or technical infractions. The decision aligned with previous Tribunal rulings on similar cases, establishing the appellant's eligibility for the refund, contingent upon the unjust enrichment test.

---