Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal directs investigation into dual invoices, refund limit, consignment sale, and fair hearing opportunity.</h1> <h3>M/s Souza Sifang Agro Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai</h3> M/s Souza Sifang Agro Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Issuance of manual and computerized invoices for the same transaction.2. Question of limitation for refund of additional duty of customs.3. Dispute regarding sale through consignment agent.Analysis:1. Issuance of Invoices:The appellant argued that issuing both manual and computerized invoices for the same transaction did not prejudice the Revenue. However, the reason for such dual issuance remained unexplained. The Tribunal directed Revenue to conduct an inquiry to determine why both types of invoices were issued and to inform the appellant of the findings to resolve the controversy arising from the adjudication order.2. Question of Limitation:The appellant contended that the issue of limitation should not be raised, citing Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007, which allows a refund of additional duty of customs to counterbalance importer sufferings without any provision for questioning limitation. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. On the other hand, Revenue argued for the application of limitation based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Riso India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal decided to examine the appellant's arguments on limitation during the inquiry's result examination.3. Sale through Consignment Agent:Regarding the dispute over the sale through a consignment agent, the original authority was directed to investigate whether the consignment agent had indeed sold the appellant's goods through the invoices in question. If confirmed, the appellant should not be denied a refund, provided the conditions of the Notification are met. The appeal was remanded to the original authority for expedited re-adjudication, ensuring the appellant is given a fair hearing opportunity.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised by the parties and the Tribunal's directions for further inquiry and resolution.