News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
Cus - A trader-importer, who paid SAD & who discharged VAT or ST liability on subsequent sale, and who issued invoices without indicating details of duty paid would be entitled to benefit of Notifn 102/2007: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 30, 2014: THE claims filed by the appellant seeking refund of SAD under Notification no. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the endorsement as required in terms of condition 2(b) of the said Notification was not made on the invoice issued for sale of goods.

Condition 2(b) reads thus -

(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 ;

Before the Tribunal, the appellant had submitted that they are traders issuing commercial invoices and they have sold the imported goods on which they suffered SAD on payment of CST/VAT and as no duty element has been incorporated in the invoice, therefore, taking the benefit of SAD by the buyer does not arise. Further, the SAD is payable by the assessee to safeguard CST/VAT and since the goods have been cleared on payment of CST/VAT, therefore, they are entitled to get the benefit as per the Notification no. 102/07-Cus. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Equinox Solution Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-1907-CESTAT-MUM & Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-1944-CESTAT-MUM .

On the other hand, the AR relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case of Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd.- 2013-TIOL-1946-CESTAT-DEL and submitted that the condition of the notification is to be followed strictly and in the said case, the refund claim was denied by this Tribunal.

In view of two contrary decisions,the matter was referred to the Larger Bench to answer the reference as to whether the condition 2(b) is mandatory.

We reported this reference as - 2014-TIOL-639-CESTAT-MUM.

Applying the ratio of the decisions in Mangalore Chemicalsand Fertilizers Ltd.- 2002-TIOL-234-SC-CX and New India Sugar Mills Ltd. [AIR 1963 SC 1207], the Larger Bench concluded that the condition relating to endorsement on the invoice was merely a procedural one and the purpose and object of such an endorsement could be achieved when the duty element itself was not specified in the invoice . Inasmuch as since the object and purpose of the condition is achieved by non-specification of the duty element, the mere non-making of the endorsement could not have undermined the purpose of the exemption, the Bench held.

The Larger Bench, therefore, concurred with the view taken by the Tribunal in the cases of Equinox Solution Ltd. & Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). See - 2014-TIOL-1191-CESTAT-MUM-LB.

The referral Single Member Bench has decided the appeals recently.

The Bench observed -

3. The said reference has been answered by the Tribunal and held that "A trader-importer, who paid SAD on the imported goods and who discharged VAT/ST liability on subsequent sale, and who issued commercial invoices without indicating any details of the duty paid would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 102/2007-Cus”, although they have not made an endorsement on the invoice that credit of duty is not admissible. Therefore, following the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal, I hold that as the appellants have cleared the imported goods on payment of CST/VAT being a trader under the cover of commercial invoice, therefore they are entitled for refund claim as they have satisfied the condition of Notification 102/07 dated 14.09.2007.

The appeals were allowed with consequential relief and the adjudicating authority was directed to comply with the order within 30 days of receipt.

(See 2014-TIOL-2132-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023