TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Orders-in-Original dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In Order-in-Original No. 19513/12, the refund claim of Rs.2,51,046/- relating to import of coated art board/coated board was rejected, and in Order-in-Original No. 19521/12 the refund claim of Rs.2,63,572/relating to art coated paper/printing paper was similarly rejected. The adjudicating authority held that the condition prescribed under paragraph 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was not fulfilled, observing that the sales invoices did not contain proper endorsement regarding non-admissibility of credit of SAD and that discrepancies existed between the invoices submitted for refund and those obtained from buyers, though payment of SAD and VAT was not in dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endorsement that "No credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act shall be admissible"; VAT payment was evidenced through returns and Chartered Accountant certification; and correlation between imported goods and goods sold was duly established. 4.2 It was further submitted that substantial compliance of the conditions of Notification is sufficient and procedural variations cannot defeat refund of a beneficial exemption. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative reiterated the findings contained in the impugned orders and submitted that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory condition prescribed under paragraph 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. 6. Upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted. It is also not disputed that the goods were subsequently sold in the domestic market on payment of VAT/Sales Tax. The appellant has also produced Chartered Accountant certificates certifying correlation between the imported consignments and subsequent sales and confirming that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. Thus, the essential elements of payment of SAD, subsequent sale of goods on payment of VAT stand established. The rejection of the refund claims by the lower authorities is confined primarily to alleged discrepancies in the endorsement appearing in the invoices and differences between the invoice formats submitted by the appellant and those obtained from buyers. 7.3 We note that the learned counsel appearing for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntation of the invoices rather than the absence of the declaration itself. The Lower Appellate authority has referred to discrepancies between invoice copies retained by the appellant and those obtained from buyers, particularly in terms of layout, typographical arrangement or format. Such differences may arise from the use of different accounting or printing systems and cannot, by themselves, establish that the statutory declaration was omitted. Significantly, the lower authorities have not recorded any categorical finding that the buyers had actually availed credit of SAD or that the endorsement regarding non-admissibility of credit was completely absent in the invoices issued by the appellant. 7.6 We further observe that the requireme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les invoices does not exactly match with the description in the Bills of Entry when the importer produces documents establishing correlation between imports and subsequent sales. Similarly, in Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai, 2020 (374) E.L.T. 519 (Mad.), the Hon'ble High Court held that once payment of SAD, subsequent sale of goods on payment of VAT and correlation of goods are established, refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds relating to discrepancies in description or invoice format. 7.9 Similar views have been expressed by this Tribunal in Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, 2021 (378) E.L.T. 231 (Tr....