2015 (4) TMI 450 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - SAD - Signature not verified - Held that - only ground for rejecting the refund is that the agreement between the importer and the consignment agent does not contain the signature of the witnesses - As per the copy of the Agreement, it bears signatures of both the importer, being the first party, and the consignment agent being the second party. There is no requirement in the statutory provisions that the Agreement should bear the signatures of the witnesses. In fact, the notification providing for refund does not require that the appellant should submit a copy of the agreement. The finding of Commissioner (Appeals) is indeed very strange and totally unwarranted. In the circumstances, the appellant have submitted all required documents for processing and sanctioning of the refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on lack of witness signatures in the agreement between importer and consignment agent.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection of a refund of &8377; 1,14,692 by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant filed a refund claim for SAD paid on imported goods, including necessary documents as per Notification No. 102/2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited a Board Circular requiring the consignment agent agreement to be authorized with witness signatures for refund eligibility. However, the Commissioner's rejection was solely based on the absence of witness signatures in the agreement.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the agreement between the importer and consignment agent did not need witness signatures as per statutory provisions. The Tribunal noted that the notification for refund did not mandate the submission of the agreement itself. The Tribunal deemed the Commissioner's decision as "strange and totally unwarranted" as the appellant had provided all necessary documents for the refund claim processing and approval.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the refund should be granted along with consequential relief as per the law. The judgment clarifies that the absence of witness signatures in the agreement did not justify the rejection of the refund claim, as it was not a statutory requirement and all essential documents were duly submitted by the appellant.