2018 (1) TMI 1278 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007 - denial on the ground that whereas the goods stand described in the Bills of Entry as various types of plastic granules such as LLDPE, HDPE, polypropylene, PVC of various grades, the same stand described in the sales invoice as plastic granules only - Held that - it is not Revenue s case that the goods imported by the appellant were not ultimately sold and VAT was not paid by the appellant. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, denial of refund on the basis of minor differences in the description cannot be adopted for holding against the assessee - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on mismatch in description between Bills of Entry and sales invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant imported plastic granules and cleared them by paying SAD, seeking a refund upon subsequent sale with VAT payment. The Revenue rejected the refund claim of ?6,26,301 citing discrepancy in descriptions between Bills of Entry and sales invoices. The appellant argued that detailed descriptions were not required under Tamil Nadu VAT Act, and generic terms like "plastic granules" sufficed. However, lower authorities upheld the rejection.

The Tribunal noted the sole ground for rejection was the mismatch in descriptions, without disputing the sale of imported goods. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the objective of creating a level playing field for importers and domestic manufacturers. It referenced a case where minor differences in descriptions did not disentitle an importer from SAD refund. Applying these precedents, the Tribunal found no evidence that the goods were not sold with VAT paid, thus rejecting the denial of refund based on minor description discrepancies.

Conclusively, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted that the generic description of "plastic granules" in sales invoices, in line with Tamil Nadu VAT Act requirements, did not warrant disentitlement to the refund claim despite minor discrepancies in descriptions between Bills of Entry and sales invoices.