2018 (8) TMI 834 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Customs dated 14/09/2007 - amount claimed as refund in bills of entry was wrongly filed, for which the refund claim was filed again - denial of refund on the ground that as per Circular No. 16/2008-Customs dated 13/10/2008 issued by Board, refund can be filed only once in respect of Bills of Entry - Held that - Admittedly, the appellant had sold the entire quantity covered by the Bill of Entry, thus entitled to the refund of entire SAD of ₹ 2,24,672/-. The refund to the extent of ₹ 1,24,672/- was filed inadvertently. They have also filed C.A. certificate indicating that the said less claiming of refund was on account of clerical mistake. Inasmuch as the same is a clerical error, the rejection of the remaining claim was not justified. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that otherwise the entire goods covered by Bill of Entry were sold and the appellant is entitled to refund of entire SAD so paid by them - rejection of refund not justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on Circular No.16/2008-Customs
Appellant's claim for balance refund amount of ?1 lakh
Applicability of Board Circular on refund claims

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning the refund of a special amount claimed by the appellant, which was denied by the Authorities based on Circular No.16/2008-Customs. The appellant, engaged in trading various items, paid a duty of ?2,24,672 in respect of a Bill of Entry dated 15/12/2014, erroneously claimed a refund of ?1,24,672, and later filed a claim for the balance of ?1 lakh. The Authorities rejected the balance claim citing that the refund claim for the Bill of Entry had already been settled as per the Circular. The appellant contended that the clerical error in mentioning the refund amount should not justify the denial of the balance claim, as they were entitled to the refund of the entire Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid.

The Member (Judicial) agreed with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the Board Circular pertained to situations where only a part of the quantity covered by a Bill of Entry was sold, restricting the refund to that part. Since the appellant had sold the entire quantity covered by the Bill of Entry, they were entitled to the refund of the entire SAD amount paid. The rejection of the balance claim was deemed unjustified, especially considering the clerical nature of the error in the initial refund claim amount. The appellant's submission of a Chartered Accountant certificate indicating the clerical mistake further supported their case.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned decision, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The ruling highlighted that the denial of the balance refund claim was unwarranted, given that the appellant had sold all goods covered by the Bill of Entry and was entitled to the full refund of the SAD amount paid.