TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1064
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....001HD' etc. vide 51 Bills of Entry. The appellant claimed refund in terms of Notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 as amended and submitted documents in support of the refund claim. The department noticed discrepancies on the description of the goods and the brand name not being mentioned in the invoice. Certain discrepancies were also noticed with two different stamps being found in the invoices submitted by the appellant but missing in the invoices received by the buyers. Deficiency memo was issued by the department to rectify the defects and for non-submission of certain documents. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority vide Order in Original dated 6.2.2013, rejected the refund claims filed by the appellant for non-fulfillment of the conditions specified in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal, hence this present appeal. 3. The learned Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate appeared for the appellant and Smt. O.M. Reena, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ract tax. In any case, for the purpose of the conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, whether the sale was absolute or on consignment basis was irrelevant. In fine, the appellant submits that the subject refund claims have been rejected for trivial reasons and hence their appeal may be allowed. 3.2 The learned Authorized Representative for the respondent reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 4. Heard both sides. We find that the issue relating to the rejection of the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) refund claim alleging that there is mismatch with regard to the description of goods etc. in the sales invoices when compared to the Bills of Entry and other minor discrepancies is no longer res integra. The fact remains that the appellant has produced a Chartered Accountant's Certificate along with the reconciliation statement as required by Boards Circular. In such a case the decision to discard the certificate should be based on certain incriminating and reliable documents and the reasons for disbelieving the certificate should be clearly spelt out. In the absence of such action the claim cannot be rejected. 5. In Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e were initially exempted from levy of SAD vide Sl. No. 11 of the Table Annexed to Notification No. 29/1998-Cus., dated 2-6-1998. The said exemption underwent many changes over the years and the present exemption is contained in Notification 102/2007-Cus. wherein the exemption is operationalised through a refund mechanism. Notwithstanding these changes, the object of the levy was to counterbalance the levy of local taxes on domestically produced goods on imported goods so that there is a level playing field between the two. However, when the imported goods are subsequently sold in the domestic market bearing the burden of local taxes, exemption is provided from SAD so as to neutralize the impact of double levy. This object and purpose of the levy and the exemption needs to be kept in mind while interpreting Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 5.2 Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules prescribes the documents on the strength of which CENVAT credit can be taken. An invoice issued by an importer is also one of the prescribed documents. However, for taking the CENVAT credit, under sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 9, following particulars are required to be indicated, namely, details of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. We find that there are three documents which the importer has to produce for being entitled for refund of SAD, they being, (i) document evidencing payment of the said additional duty; (ii) invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. The adjudicating authority appears to have done a thorough scrutiny of the documents and granted refund for substantial portion of the claim. In respect of the remaining portion, the only reason for rejection is that the appellant has not adopted the same code while describing the product in their sale invoices. The explanation offered by the appellant/importer is that the numbers which followed the letters HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE are relevant only for person who is importing goods from the foreign country on orders being placed by the appellant and is of no consequence on the sale while selling the product in the local market. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority has not come to a conclusion that the product sold was entirely diffe....