The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) found that TR-6 challans are enough evidence of the duty incidence suffered by the importer when ordering the customs agency to reimburse the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD).
Mere Non-Appearance of Directors Cannot Justify Additions When Documentary Compliance is Complete: ITAT [Read Order]
The appellant/assessee, Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd, imported specific goods using three Bills of Entry and then applied for a refund of the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) in the amount of Rs. 2,87,801. By order, the originating authority denied the refund claim, stating that DHL had already paid the duty that was sought to be reimbursed and that there was no proof that the appellant was responsible for paying it. The Commissioner (Appeals), who also dismissed the appeal, heard the appellant’s preferred appeal.
The appellant argued that when the items were sold in the market and the identical goods were subject to a VAT tax, the appellant was entitled to a refund of SAD. There is no denying that the products were sold in the marketplace and that a VAT charge was applied to them. He said that DHL was the carrier and that their clearing agent, who was a Customs Broker, had cleared the goods.
Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand – Click here
ITAT Dismisses Income Tax Appeal After Opting for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme [Read Order]
The appellant said that he had a running account with their customs broker, who continues to pay the appellant for the items’ clearance. He has provided a copy of the TR-6 challan, which shows that the appellant paid the customs duty because it lists the importer’s name and address as M/s. VMS International Pvt. Ltd. There are numerous challans that would cover the whole Rs. 2,87,801 SAD refund, with the appellant’s name and address listed as the importer on the TR-6 challan.
The single bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that only contention on the basis of which refund was rejected is that the appellant-importer has not established that the appellant had borne the incidence of customs duty. With the copies of TR-6 challans, it is established that the appellant had borne the burden of SAD. The tribunal overturned the decision and ordered the initial authorities to reimburse Rs. 2,87,801 for SAD.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
