2015 (1) TMI 160 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - Refund of SAD - when the goods were cleared by the customs on 22-5-2012, how can the appellant raise the invoice on 19-5-2012 - Held that - advocate has drawn my attention to the registration certificate granted by Delhi Pollution Control Committee for the import of Hazardous Waste on behalf of actual users. The said registration number requires the appellant to clear the imported waste directly to the actual users from the port. As such the appellant contention that they raised the invoice on 19-5-2012, expecting the clearance of the goods on the same very day, as the duty was paid by them on 19-5-2012, has to be accepted. In terms of the said registration the appellant were required to transport the imported waste directly to the actual users from the port of import. Merely because there was delay in passing out of charge order or in clearance of the imported goods, the invoice raised by them on 19-5-2012 cannot be held to be an invoice in respect of the some other goods. The original adjudicating authority has examined the said invoice and found the goods mentioned therein are relatable to the imported goods. There is no evidence on record indicating that the goods sold by 19 May 2012 invoice was different then the goods imported or the imported goods have been sold by the appellant to any other person. No reasons to uphold the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). The same is accordingly set aside - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for SAD paid on import of goods; Dispute over refund amount erroneously refunded; Allegation of goods sold before clearance; Appeal against impugned order; Interpretation of invoice date and clearance date; Registration certificate requirements for import of Hazardous Waste.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim filed by the respondent under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid on imported goods. The refund was sanctioned by the authority under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant department challenged the refund order, claiming that an amount was erroneously refunded due to discrepancies in the goods sold against the invoice date and the date of clearance by customs.

The appellant argued that the goods sold on a specific invoice date were not the same as those imported against a particular Bill of Entry (BE) number. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this argument, stating that the correlation between the goods sold and imported was not established, leading to the allowance of the Revenue's appeal.

During the appeal hearing, the appellant contended that they raised the invoice on the sale date expecting the goods' clearance on the same day, as per the requirements of the registration certificate granted by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee for the import of Hazardous Waste on behalf of actual users. The appellant was obligated to clear the imported waste directly to the actual users from the port, justifying the invoice date discrepancy.

The appellate tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the delay in customs clearance did not invalidate the invoice date. The original adjudicating authority had examined the invoice and confirmed the goods mentioned were related to the imported goods. No evidence suggested that the goods sold under the invoice differed from the imported goods or were sold to another party. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority's decision was reinstated.