2022 (10) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant filed refund claim for refund of 4% additional duty paid by them on goods imported. The original authority sanctioned the refund vide order dated 27.7.2010. Thereafter, department filed appeal against the sanction of refund alleging that in two sales invoices, the stamp required as per Para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007 is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsement, the refund claim cannot be rejected as decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule & Company Vs. Commissioner reported in 2014 (306) ELT 326 (Tri. LB). The said decision was followed in the case of STP Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2019 (370) ELT 672 (Tri. Chen.). He prayed that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as required under para 2(b) of Notification. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the original authority after examining the invoices has made a finding that there are endorsements on the sales invoices which indicated 'not eligible for CENVAT credit'. It is also noted by the original authority that the condition in para 2(b) has been fulfilled. The Larger Bench of the ....