2016 (8) TMI 1325 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - rejection on the ground that the description of the goods mentioned in the Bill of Entry is not matching with the description given in the tax invoice issued by the appellant and that the Bill of Entry was filed on 5-4-2010, which is after the date of issuance of the tax invoice i.e. 19-3-2010. Held that - the resultant thickness of 17.52 MM is matching with the goods imported vis- -vis the goods sold in the domestic market - there is no mismatch between the goods imported and sold in the domestic market. As regards issuance of tax invoice prior to the date of filing the bill of entry, it is found that the tax invoice contained the reference of Bill of Lading, vessel particulars and the container No., etc - Since, the condition of the Notification 102/2007 has been fulfilled to the effect that the imported goods were sold in the domestic market on payment of VAT/CST, the benefit of Special Additional Duty levied on imported goods is available to the appellant as refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on mismatch of goods description in Bill of Entry and tax invoice. Appeal against Adjudication order upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 2035752. The claim was rejected due to discrepancies in goods description between the Bill of Entry and tax invoice, as well as the timing of filing the Bill of Entry post issuance of the tax invoice. The Adjudication order was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

Regarding the mismatch in goods description, the appellant argued that the tax invoice accurately reflected the goods based on the thickness of the glass, which aligned with the purchase order. The appellant contended that the total thickness of 17.52 MM glass mentioned in the tax invoice matched the goods imported, eliminating any discrepancy. Additionally, the appellant justified the issuance of the tax invoice before filing the Bill of Entry by referencing shipping documents known prior to the goods' arrival at the port.

The respondent, represented by Shri M.R. Sharma, reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the proceedings before the Tribunal. After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the total thickness of the imported glass, when considering the various types mentioned in the tax invoice, matched the goods sold domestically. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the tax invoice included references to shipping details known before the vessel's departure, justifying its issuance pre-Bill of Entry filing.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no mismatch between the imported and domestically sold goods. It determined that the conditions of Notification 102/2007, requiring imported goods to be sold domestically with VAT/CST payment, were met. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant and granting the consequential benefit of refund. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.