Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus could be denied merely because the domestic sale invoices did not contain an endorsement that credit of SAD was not admissible, when the invoices did not disclose SAD particulars and did not satisfy the requirements for a cenvatable document.
Analysis: The domestic sale invoices did not mention the SAD paid and also did not contain the appellant's registration details as a dealer eligible to issue cenvatable invoices. In such circumstances, credit could not have been availed on the strength of those invoices under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue was covered by the Larger Bench ruling relied upon, which held that where the importer paid SAD, discharged VAT or sales tax on resale, and issued commercial invoices without showing duty particulars, refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus could not be denied solely for absence of the endorsement that credit was not admissible, subject to satisfaction of the other conditions of the notification.
Conclusion: The refund could not be denied merely for want of the endorsement, and the appeal was liable to be allowed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where commercial invoices do not disclose SAD particulars and are not cenvatable documents, refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied solely because the invoice does not state that credit is not admissible, if the other conditions of the notification are satisfied.