TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Decision Allowing Refund Claim for Special Additional Duty</h1> <h3>CCE, Noida Versus M/s Lark Non Ferrous Metals Ltd.</h3> CCE, Noida Versus M/s Lark Non Ferrous Metals Ltd. - TMI Issues:Refund claim rejection based on Circular No. 18/2013-CUS and lack of bill of entry number in invoices.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by Revenue against the rejection of a refund claim for SAD by the Adjudicating Authority, citing Circular No. 18/2013-CUS. The respondent imported copper wire rod and filed a refund claim for SAD of 4% paid under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim due to the absence of bill of entry numbers in the invoices and the Circular's restriction on reusing DEPB strips for SAD refund. The respondent challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the refund claim after considering principles of natural justice and relevant Circulars issued by CBEC.The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case and highlighted Circulars emphasizing the need for hearings in processing refund claims. The Circular No. 18/2013-CUS extended the time limit for reusing DEPB Scrips/Reward Scheme Scrips for SAD credit. The Adjudicating Authority's interpretation of this Circular to disallow re-credit based on the use of Focus Product Scheme was deemed incorrect. The Commissioner stressed the importance of providing opportunities for rectifying mistakes like the absence of bill of entry details in invoices and non-submission of self-declaration in Annexure-I.The Commissioner's decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing the distinction between procedural and substantive conditions for refunds. The judgment referenced the case of Mangalore Chemical & Fertilizers vs Deputy Commissioner to highlight the importance of differentiating between condonable procedural errors and non-condonable substantive conditions. Ultimately, the Commissioner allowed the appeal, subject to verifying relevant documents and ensuring compliance with statutory procedures and conditions.The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the Commissioner's observations, upheld the decision, finding no infirmity with the impugned order. The appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, affirming the allowance of the refund claim based on the detailed analysis of Circulars, legal principles, and procedural requirements provided by the Commissioner (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
