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>Appeal Granted for Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Detailed Examination Required</h1> <h3>Paper Trade Link. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore</h3> Paper Trade Link. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - TMI Issues:Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 17.9.2007 - Requirement of stamp on invoices indicating non-availability of cenvat credit - Factual clarity on stamping of invoices - Validity of Chartered Accountant certificate as proof of non-passing of credit to buyers.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi pertained to the refund of SAD as per notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 17.9.2007, which mandates a stamp on invoices for subsequent sale of imported goods, indicating that customers are not entitled to cenvat credit of SAD paid, along with the sale of goods on VAT/sales tax. The issue revolved around the lack of clarity regarding the stamping of invoices to reflect the non-availability of cenvat credit to purchasers. The Assistant Commissioner's observations were contradictory, initially in favor of the assessee but later indicating that the invoices were not appropriately stamped.The appellant contended that they had provided a Chartered Accountant certificate confirming that no credit was passed on to the buyers, which, according to the appellant, should suffice as evidence, as the purpose of stamping is to prevent the misuse of SAD credit. The appellant referred to various decisions by the Tribunal, including CC Bangalore vs. M/s. Apple India P Ltd., M/s. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Goa, and Alfa Ventures P Ltd. vs. CCE Cochin, where similar certificates were deemed acceptable.Given the self-contradictory findings of the original adjudicating authority, the Member (Judicial) Ms. Archana Wadhwa decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a detailed examination of the factual position. The directive was to decide the issue in light of the Tribunal's decisions in the cases referenced earlier. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough factual assessment in line with the Tribunal's precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
