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>Minor procedural deficiencies cannot deny CVD duty refund benefits under Notification 102/2007-Cus when endorsements clearly show compliance</h1> <h3>M/s. Petrotech Products India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs</h3> M/s. Petrotech Products India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the denial of refund claim on technical grounds related to the endorsement made in the sales invoice and the absence of the appellant's name on the invoice.Refund Claim Issue:The appellant imported goods and filed refund applications for CVD duty. The original authority sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set it aside due to discrepancies in the endorsement on the invoices and the absence of the appellant's name. The appellant contended that they complied with the conditions by providing necessary evidence and endorsements on the invoices. The Tribunal noted that the endorsement indicated the goods were imported by the consignor, and all conditions except minor procedural ones were met. Referring to a Board Circular, it was clarified that the refund should be granted if the consignment agent is authorized and appropriate taxes are paid. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-declaration of duty in the invoice itself signifies no credit would be available, satisfying the conditions under the relevant Notification. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the refund to be sanctioned.Judgment Summary:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai addressed the denial of a refund claim on technical grounds in a case involving the endorsement on sales invoices and the absence of the appellant's name. The appellant had imported goods and filed for a refund of CVD duty, which was initially sanctioned but later set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the appellant had substantially complied with the conditions for the refund, as per a Board Circular. It was noted that the non-declaration of duty in the invoice itself indicated no credit would be available, aligning with the conditions under the relevant Notification. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the refund to be sanctioned, emphasizing that minor procedural errors should not lead to the denial of substantial benefits.
TaxTMI 