/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“the CESTAT Chennai”) in the case of M/s Aditya Chemicals v. Commissioner of Customs [Customs Appeal No.40592 of 2021 decided on October 12, 2021] has held that the Customs Authority cannot insist on production of original Value Added Tax (“VAT”) or Sales Tax Challans for grant of refund of Special Additional Duty (“SAD”) unless any deficiency memo is issued informing about the discrepancy.
The present appeal arose when M/s Aditya Chemicals (“the Appellant”) made an application for refund of SAD. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund claim observing that the Appellant has not furnished the Chartered Accountant certificate as well as correlation statement as required under para 5 of Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008. The Appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the said documents were presented. However, the appeal was again rejected on the contention that the Appellant had not furnished the original Sales Tax/VAT challans and therefore rejected the refund. Hence, the present appeal was preferred by the Appellant.
The Appellant contended that vide Paragraph 6 of Circular No. 16/2008-Customs, it has clarified that it is not required to produce the original challans of Sales Tax/VAT. The Hon’ble CESTAT Chennai accepted this contention of the Appellant and held that the Revenue Department cannot insist for producing the entire original VAT/Sales Tax challans unless any deficiency memo is issue informing discrepancy.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of
Read More
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view
Read More
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held
Read More
The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods
Read More
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export
Read More