2015 (2) TMI 1082 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - SAD - Held that - It is seen that the documents placed by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) were not properly examined by the adjudicating authority. In view of that the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents. Learned Advocate is directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority in de-novo adjudication. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against setting aside of adjudication order regarding refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for imported Aluminium Foil of specific thickness and sizes.

Analysis:
1. Adjudication Order Set-Aside: The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) where the adjudication order was set aside. The Respondent imported Aluminium Foil of specific thickness and sizes under various Bills of Entry and paid 4% SAD. They filed a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing the Respondent's failure to provide necessary documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, noting that the required documents were indeed submitted by the Respondent.

2. Arguments and Precedent: The Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the Advocate for the Respondent stated that all required documents were filed before both authorities. The Advocate agreed to a remand for document verification. It was also highlighted that a similar case was decided in favor of the importer by the Tribunal previously.

3. Decision and Remand: The Tribunal found merit in the Respondent's submissions, noting that the documents presented were not adequately examined by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper document examination. The Advocate was directed to cooperate in the process, ensuring a fair opportunity for a hearing. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for remand purposes.

This judgment highlights the importance of thorough document examination in adjudicating refund claims under specific notifications and the need for fair procedures and opportunities for all parties involved. The decision to remand the matter emphasizes the significance of proper verification and due process in such cases.