News Update

Unveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
Refund of SAD - Whether to avail benefit of Notifn 102/07, condition requiring an endorsement that no credit of SAD shall be admissible is mandatory - Contrary decisions - matter referred to Larger Bench: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, APR 25, 2014: THE claims filed by the appellant seeking refund of SAD under Notification no. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 were rejected 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 ;

The appellant submitted that they are traders issuing commercial invoices and they have cleared the imported goods on which they suffered SAD and sold 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. vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2010-TIOL-1907-CESTAT-MUM [Single Member Bench] & Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (ACC & Import), Mumbai 2013-TIOL-1944-CESTAT-MUM [Division Bench].

On the other hand, the Revenue representative relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case of Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi 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.

The Bench observed –

"5. As there are two contrary decisions of his Tribunal placed before me, it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Larger Bench of this Tribunal to resolve 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."

The Registry was directed to place the matter before the President to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve the issue.

(See 2014-TIOL-639-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