2011 (9) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 and CBEC Circular 6/2008 dated 28.4.2008 - Appellant had imported goods under the cover of Bill of Entry but triplicate or any other original copy of the Bill of Entry was not submitted with the claim - Held that it is not in dispute that the appellants have paid the dues and the technical ground of non production of original copy of bill of entry cannot be made a basis for denial of the benefit of notification - Appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim based on non-submission of original Bill of Entry.
2. Compliance with conditions of exemption notification and circular.
3. Interpretation of conditions for submission of documents with refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant challenging the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the non-submission of the original Bill of Entry along with the claim. The appellant contended that they had submitted a photocopy of the Bill of Entry along with the original copy of the TR 6 challan as evidence of payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on non-compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification and circular, limiting the appeal amount to Rs.26,466.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the requirement of submitting original documents as per the notification and circular. However, upon closer examination of the conditions specified in the notification, it was found that the adjudicating authority had misinterpreted the requirements. The appellate authority clarified that the notification did not explicitly mandate the submission of original documents, and the appellant had fulfilled the conditions by providing copies of the necessary documents.

3. The revenue's argument centered on the non-production of the original Bill of Entry for sanctioning the refund. The appellate authority determined that the absence of the original Bill of Entry should not be a basis for denying the refund, especially when the appellant had paid the necessary dues. It was established that the technicality of not submitting the original document should not override the substantive compliance with the exemption requirements. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was rejected.