SAD refund allowed despite invoice declaration not using exact Notification 102/2007 phrase requirements

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal regarding refund of SAD. The customs authority had rejected the refund claim solely because the invoice declaration stated "No Cenvat Credit is admissible" instead of the exact phrase required under Notification 102/2007 regarding non-admissibility of additional duty credit. The tribunal held that while the declaration did not use the precise notification language, it conveyed the required purpose. The Chartered Accountant's certificate established that the duty burden was not passed to buyers, addressing unjust enrichment concerns. The refund claim was allowed as the appellant substantially complied with notification requirements.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus conditions.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant imported "ECRM MAKO NEWSMATIC 250 (Fully Automatic) CTP PLATESETTERS" and paid Additional Duty (SAD). The refund claim was rejected for not complying with Para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Adjudicating Authority held that the importer failed to indicate non-admissibility of Cenvat credit in the sale invoices before the "Out of Charge" date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of specific declaration in the invoices and the Chartered Accountant Certificate's failure to rule out unjust enrichment.

Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant contended compliance with all conditions, asserting a rubber stamp declaration on invoices, ensuring no Cenvat credit admissibility. They argued that the buyer, a publishing house, cannot avail credit under CENVAT Rules. Citing legal precedents, the appellant defended their position.

Judicial Review:
The Tribunal reviewed the case, focusing on Notification No. 102/2007-Cus requirements. While the Adjudicating Authority accepted the Chartered Accountant's Certificate on unjust enrichment, the refund claim was rejected solely for lack of a specific declaration in the invoices. The Tribunal found the appellant's declaration sufficient, even if not exact as per the Notification's wording. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate also clarified the non-passing of the duty burden to buyers, supporting the appellant's position.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal deemed the appellant's sales invoice declaration satisfactory for Notification compliance. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate adequately addressed unjust enrichment concerns. Considering the circumstances and legal principles, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund claim's approval. The decision was pronounced on 30.07.2024.

---