Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 could be denied merely because the description of the imported goods in the Bills of Entry differed from the description used in the domestic sales invoices, when the conditions of the notification and circulars were otherwise complied with.
Analysis: The refund claim was examined against the requirements of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 and the related CBEC circulars. The record showed that the Bills of Entry contained the complete description required for customs valuation, while the domestic invoices referred to the imported goods, disclosed the relevant Bills of Entry, and carried the necessary declaration that the buyer would not get credit of the special additional duty. The invoices also reflected collection of the applicable sales tax or value added tax, showing that the imported goods had been sold in the domestic market. In that setting, a mere variation in the form of description, especially where the trade description was used for local sale identification, was not a valid basis to deny the refund.
Conclusion: The mismatch in description did not defeat the refund claim. The denial of refund was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification.