2017 (12) TMI 1679 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus., as amended - Rejection for the reason that claimant has submitted photocopies of T.R. 6 challans where the date of payment is not available which is mandatory for processing the claim and hence condition No. 2(e)(ii) of the notification has not been met - Held that - It is evident that they have produced photocopy of bank challans evidencing payment of customs duty, extract from ICEGATE duly certified by Chartered Accountant as proof of payment. This being so, just because in the photocopy of T.R. 6 challan the date of payment is not clear, rejection of the refund claim only on this ground cannot be sustained, especially since the lower authorities very well have confirmed the fact of discharge of duty liability based on other documents submitted by the appellant - Moreover, appellants have not been found wanting in fulfillment of any of other conditions given under para (2) of the N/N. 102/2007-Cus. In the absence of any other discrepancy or shortcoming, appellants are very much eligible for grant of the refund amount as claimed by them under N/N. 102/2007-Cus. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to lack of proof of payment of customs duty as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

Analysis:
The appellant filed refund claims for 4% Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., which were rejected by the original authority citing the absence of clear payment date on photocopies of T.R. 6 challans. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that they provided bank challans and ICEGATE extracts as proof of payment, even though the TR-6 challans did not have payment dates. They contended that the purpose of the notification is to ensure actual payment of customs duty, which was evidenced by the bank challans and ICEGATE extracts. The appellant also emphasized the reliability of the Chartered Accountant's certificate as conclusive evidence of payment, citing legal precedents. The Assistant Commissioner (AR) supported the impugned order, but the Tribunal found that the appellant had met the conditions of the notification by providing sufficient evidence of duty payment through bank challans and ICEGATE extracts. The Tribunal held that the rejection based solely on unclear payment dates on TR-6 challans was unjustified, especially when other documents confirmed duty discharge. As the appellant fulfilled all conditions and no discrepancies were found, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the refund as claimed under Notification No.102/2007-Cus.