2011 (9) TMI 124 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - claim of refund rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the appellant had not submitted the relevant documents in spite of query memo dated 22.7.2008 - Held that - the documents were submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) who did not entertain the documents as under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, no fresh documents could be entertained by him at the appellate stage, particularly when the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the original authority. - this is a fit case for remand to the original authority to examine the claim afresh after going through all the documents submitted by the appellant originally with the Assistant Commissioner as well as at the appellate stage with the Commissioner (Appeals) and after affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to non-submission of relevant documents; Entitlement to submit fresh evidence before Commissioner (Appeals); Requirement of endorsement on sales tax invoices for admissibility of refund.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Siddharth Overseas, filed a refund claim for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on goods cleared under a specific bill of entry. The claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner citing non-submission of relevant documents despite a query memo. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted the required documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which prohibits the submission of fresh evidence at the appellate stage. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to endorse sales tax invoices as required by Notification No.102/2007, thus rendering the refund inadmissible.

The appellant's counsel argued that they did submit the necessary tax invoices with the required endorsement before the appellate authority, contradicting the Assistant Commissioner's finding. The appellate tribunal noted that certain essential documents, such as the triplicate copy of the bill of entry, attested invoices, balance sheet for 2008-09, self-declaration, and certified documents related to sales tax, were not submitted before the Assistant Commissioner. Despite the submission of these documents before the Commissioner (Appeals), they were not considered due to the restrictions under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules.

Ultimately, the tribunal found that a remand to the original authority was appropriate in this case to re-examine the claim thoroughly, considering all documents submitted by the appellant at both stages and providing an opportunity for the appellant to present their case. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the documents and a fair hearing for the appellant.