2024 (12) TMI 1321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a refund application on 08.03.2012 for an amount of Rs. 1,82,232/- being 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 against Bill of Entry No. 2935961 dated 10.03.2011. The said refund claim was rejected on the ground that no endorsement on the sales invoices by affixing seal or stamp has been made indicating that CENVAT credit has not been availed and also the invoices did not reflect in the VAT Returns filed and, also they were not attested by the Chartered Accountant or receipt of the same have not been acknowledged by the Tax Department. 3. None present for the appellant. Heard learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Reve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1135 - CESTAT Chennai] referring to their earlier cases [M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai: 2017-TIOL-3433-CESTAT-MAD.] and Gazal Overseas vs. CC, New Delhi: 2016 (332) ELT 767 (Tri.-Del.) observed as follows: "5. We find that the issue whether the appellants are eligible for refund when the goods are exempted from levy of sales tax/VAT is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in Gaxal Overseas (supra) observed as under: 4. We have considered the contention of ld. DR and also perused the refund papers. Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 as amended allowed refund of SAD subject to the condition....