Customs Tribunal allows refund claim despite lack of credit endorsement in invoices under CENVAT Credit Rules.

The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim for Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The appellant, a trader, was deemed eligible for the refund despite not endorsing the credit in commercial invoices, as per a precedent and clarification on Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The rejection was found unjustified, and the appellant was granted the refund, with the impugned order set aside and appeals allowed with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this judgment is the compliance with para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. regarding the refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs.

Summary:
The appellant filed refund claims for the Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The original authority rejected the claims for non-compliance with para 2(b) of the notification, as the required declaration was not endorsed on the invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that as a trader, they are not eligible to take cenvat credit and pass it on to another. It was contended that the refund was rejected due to insufficient document production. The appellant relied on a decision by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Department supported the findings of the impugned order.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that all necessary documents were furnished by the appellant, and the sole reason for rejection was the non-compliance with para 2(b) of the notification. The Tribunal referred to a decision by a Larger Bench in a similar case, which clarified the requirements for taking credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, being a trader, was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus., even without endorsing the credit in the commercial invoices. Following the precedent set by previous cases, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim was unjustified, and the appellant was eligible for the refund.

Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.

---