2013 (11) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eads as under :- "(b)   the importer, while issuing the invoice for sale of the said goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible; 2. While 9 appeals were disposed by ld. Appellate Authority by common Order-in-Appeal No. CCA/I & G/102-110/2010, dated 26-7-2010 the other appeal was disposed by different order dated 24-3-2011. However all the appeals before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) resulted with dismissal denying refund of additional customs duty. 3.1 Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that different amounts of refund are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded the declaration to be made as required by the customs Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007. The Notification No. 296/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010 stated that additional duty on import was refundable which are packed and governed by above special law irrespective of falling of such goods under any of the Chapters of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3.4 It was further submitted that the appellant cannot be deprived of the refund when all the documents were furnished before ld. Adjudicating Authority and notification dated 27-2-2010 warranted liberal interpretation in view of compliance available at page 46 of the appeal folder supporting the refund application. But those were ignored. The appellant gets support for its contention....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supports the appellate order and submitted that denial of refund to the appellant was justified. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6.1 Since entire dispute is narrowed down to the issue of compliance to the condition under para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007, it would be sufficient if it is held that declaration on the invoices issued was mandatory and the trader appellant was not immune from compliance to the said mandatory requirement of the notification. There is nothing in the notification to discriminate a manufacturer from a trader when the importer of the goods claiming refund has an obligation under law to be declare on the invoice itself that the goods sold under that invoice shall not ....