2021 (1) TMI 1212 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - mismatch with regard to the description of goods in the sales invoices when compared to the Bills of Entry - HELD THAT - In page-20 the sales invoice describes the goods as ENABLE 3505HH (LDPE) , whereas in the Bills of Entry the product is described as ENABLE 3505HH (LLDPE) . In pages 50-74, the appellant has produced the Chartered Accountant s Certificate along with the reconciliation statement. The Chartered Accountant has verified the accounts and stated that the appellants are eligible for the refund in respect of SAD paid by them. The correlation sheet is also enclosed along with the Chartered Accountant s Certificate to show the description of the goods in the Bills of Entry and the VAT paid for the goods as evidenced by the sales invoices. The appellant has sufficiently proved and fulfilled the requirements as per the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-11-2007. After perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant, the rejection of refund claim is without any legal or factual basis. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund claim in respect of 4 Bills of Entry is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to mismatch in goods description between sales invoices and Bills of Entry.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim covering 27 Bills of Entry, out of which the refund for 23 Bills of Entry was sanctioned with a clerical mistake resulting in a short payment. The remaining 4 Bills of Entry were rejected due to a mismatch in goods description between the sales invoices and Bills of Entry. The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who modified the order by granting a refund for the clerical mistake but upheld the rejection of the 4 Bills of Entry. The appellant then approached the Tribunal challenging the rejection of refund for these 4 Bills of Entry.

On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the discrepancy in goods description was a clerical error, and all other details matched between the import documents and sales invoices. The Chartered Accountant verified the books of accounts, confirming the correlation between the sales and imports. Despite producing these documents, the department denied the refund. The appellant cited relevant legal precedents to support their case.

The Revenue, represented by the Learned DR, supported the findings of the impugned order rejecting the refund claim.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the documents provided by the appellant. They found that the goods description mismatch was a clerical error, supported by the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and reconciliation statement. The Tribunal noted that the appellant fulfilled the requirements as per the relevant notification. Citing a favorable decision from a High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund claim lacked legal or factual basis. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund for the 4 Bills of Entry and allowed the appeal with any consequential reliefs.

The operative part of the order was pronounced on 15-1-2021, granting relief to the appellant in respect of the 4 Bills of Entry with a mismatch in goods description, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling legal requirements and providing supporting documentation in refund claims.