Tribunal grants relief to construction company in customs refund dispute, citing evidence and Circular.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the refund rejection and granting consequential reliefs. The appellant, engaged in construction, faced a refund denial of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid on imported sanitary fittings due to missing invoices. Despite being unable to issue invoices under the composite VAT scheme, the appellant provided evidence through a Chartered Accountant's certificate, sale agreements, and VAT challans. The Tribunal acknowledged the practical fulfillment of conditions, citing Circular No.6/2008-Cus., and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on lack of invoices and failure to establish non-availment of CENVAT credit.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in construction of residential buildings, imported sanitary fittings and paid Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). A refund claim of SAD paid was rejected due to missing sale invoices and failure to prove non-availment of CENVAT credit. The original authority and Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to this appeal.

The appellant argued that under the composite scheme of VAT, they couldn't issue invoices but included the price of sanitary items in sale agreements. They submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate correlating VAT and SAD payments, along with sale agreements and VAT challans. The appellant contended that due to VAT regulations, they couldn't issue invoices, thus couldn't endorse non-availment of credit on SAD. The appellant highlighted Circular No.6/2008-Cus., allowing a Chartered Accountant to certify such correlations, which was done in this case.

The respondent reiterated the rejection, emphasizing the absence of sales invoices as proof of goods sold to customers. The Department argued that without invoices, the conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus weren't met, justifying the refund denial.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant, operating under the composite scheme, paid VAT on the agreement value, including the imported sanitary items. The appellant couldn't issue invoices due to the composite scheme's provisions. The Tribunal cited Circular No.6/2008-Cus., stating that a Chartered Accountant could certify VAT and SAD correlation. The Tribunal found the appellant had practically fulfilled conditions, overturning the refund rejection and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the refund rejection and granting consequential reliefs.

---