Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Chowgule & Company P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa on 5 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. C/18 to 20/10-Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. GOA/CUS/VSK/86 to 88/2009 dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Goa)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
M/s. Chowgule & Company P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C.S. Biradar, Advocate for the appellant Shri J.R. Sharma, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 05.09.2014 Date of decision : 05.09.2014 O R D E R No:..
The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of SAD filed under Notification no. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 have been rejected on the ground that as per the provisions of condition 2(b) of the said Notification, there should be an endorsement to the effect that no credit of additional duty was taken and benefit of SAD has not been passed on to the buyer.
2. It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant being a trader have cleared the imported goods on payment of CST/VAT and no duty element has been shown in the invoice. In fact, goods have been cleared under commercial invoice. Therefore, the condition 2(d) of the Notification 102/2007 is complied with indirectly. In these circumstances,, it is prayed that the refund claim be allowed. The matter was referred to the larger bench of the Tribunal raising the following issue:
Whether to avail the benefit of Notification no. 102/07, the condition 2(b) of the Notification is mandatory for compliance being a trader who cleared the goods on the strength of commercial invoices.
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 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.
4. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to comply with this order within 30 days of the receipt.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) //SR 3