2019 (3) TMI 1949 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - non-fulfilment of condition 2(e)(ii) of N/N. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - rejection of refund stating that the description shown in the sales invoices does not match with the description shown in the bill of entries - HELD THAT - It is seen that the description shown in the bill of entry is as per the nature or classification of goods whereas in the sales invoices only grades are shown. The department does not have a case that goods were not imported or sold. The sales invoices, Bill of Entry together with Chartered Accountant Certificate is produced by assessee along with refund claim. All these documents together would definitely show that there are no discrepancies with the goods sold. The Tribunal in the case of PRECISION INFORMATIC (M) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-IV 2017 (12) TMI 1828 - CESTAT CHENNAI has held that minor discrepancies cannot disentitle the importer from getting benefit of refund. Rejection on the ground that Chartered Accountant s Certificate is not proper for the reason it is issued without verification of the accounts of the appellant - HELD THAT - The notification mandates the furnishing of the certificate issued by a statutory auditor. The department does not have a case that the certificate was not issued by a statutory auditor. There is no evidence to show that the certificate does not correlate with accounts of appellant. The reasons for rejection of refund are unjustified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., discrepancies in goods description between sales invoices and bill of entry, validity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate for VAT paid.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellants filed a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., which was rejected for non-fulfillment of condition 2(e)(ii) of the said notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on these grounds, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on discrepancies in goods description between sales invoices and bill of entry.

2. Discrepancies in Goods Description: The appellant contended that the rejection was unfounded as the description of goods in the sales invoices, based on grades, did not match the description in the bill of entry, based on classification. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed imported and sold, with no dispute on that front. The documents submitted, including sales invoices, bill of entry, and Chartered Accountant Certificate, collectively demonstrated no discrepancies in the goods sold. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that minor discrepancies should not bar the importer from refund benefits.

3. Validity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate: The second reason for rejection was the validity of the Chartered Accountant's Certificate for VAT paid. The Revenue argued that the certificate lacked proper verification of the appellant's accounts, making it unacceptable. However, the Tribunal observed that the certificate was issued by a statutory auditor, as mandated by the notification. There was no evidence to suggest that the certificate did not align with the appellant's accounts, leading to the conclusion that the rejection based on this ground was unjustified.

4. Decision: After considering the arguments and precedent, the Tribunal found the reasons for rejecting the refund claim to be unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs. The ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring that minor discrepancies should not hinder legitimate refund claims, especially when supported by proper documentation and statutory certificates.