2019 (2) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal grants refund appeal for Special Additional Duty, citing fulfillment of Notification 102/2007-Cus requirements

M/s. SIBCO Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) Chennai

The appeal was allowed as the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai found that the rejection of the refund of Special Additional Duty ... Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground that condition 2(b) of N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007 has not been complied i.e., no endorsement was made on sales invoices - Held that:- The appellant has furnished the Chartered Accountant’s certificate showing that necessary endorsements were made on the sales invoices - Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule & Company [2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] has observed that the said endorsement is not mandatory - rejection of refund not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Rejection of refund of SAD based on non-compliance with Notification No.102/2007-Cus.The judgment addresses the issue of rejection of a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) based on the non-compliance with condition 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had fulfilled the requirement by providing a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing the necessary endorsements on sales invoices. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision in the case of Aban Exim Pvt. Ltd. and a Larger Bench decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. to support the argument that the endorsement was not mandatory. The respondent's representative supported the findings of the impugned order.Upon hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) noted that the issue revolved around the rejection of SAD due to non-fulfillment of para 2(b) of Notification 102/2007. After reviewing the records and the Chartered Accountant's certificate provided by the appellant, it was observed that the necessary endorsements were indeed made on the sales invoices. Citing the Tribunal's decision in Chowgule & Company case, it was established that the endorsement was not obligatory. Therefore, the rejection of the refund was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed appropriate. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai.