2019 (2) TMI 1184 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 Customs dated 14.09.2007 - only ground of rejection is that the Truck No. mentioned in the requisite documents is not tallying with the truck No. mentioned on the invoice/ receipt. The plea of the appellant for same to be a clerical error has not been considered by the adjudicating authority - Held that - Perusal of Form VAT 38 shows that the invoice Nos. i.e. 192-194 and 196 are mentioned in the VAT 38 challan. The said mention is sufficient to hold that the VAT Challans are with respect to such Truck Nos. as are mentioned in the invoice bearing aforesaid Nos. Now, perusing the CA Certificate it is clear that not only the Bill of entry No. but the invoice No. as well as the date of the payments made are mentioned. Thus three of these documents when read together are sufficient to prove that three of these documents speak about such transaction and such details as are mentioned in the invoices 192-194 and 196. Once, this is the fact the difference in the truck No. on VAT 38 is nothing beyond merely a typographical error. The adjudicating authority has committed an error while not looking into the CA Certificate as the corroboration to the invoices as well as the VAT 38 challans. In fact, no other document was required. The finding that, the documents evidencing the same are not produced is therefore opined to be an outcome of mere presumption on part of the Department - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007 Customs - Rejection of refund claim for 4% SAD paid on goods - Compliance with conditions of the notification - Discrepancy in truck numbers on VAT receipts - Clerical error in documentation.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of refund claims totaling ?8,00,938/- under Notification No. 102/2007 Customs for 4% SAD paid on imported goods. The appellant had complied with conditions (a) to (d) of the notification, but the refund was partially sanctioned, and the remaining amount was rejected due to discrepancies in truck numbers on VAT receipts. The appellant argued that the discrepancies were clerical errors, supported by a CA Certificate, which the adjudicating authority failed to consider. The Department contended that the rejection was justified as per condition (e) of the notification.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that conditions (a) to (d) were met by the appellant, and there was no dispute regarding the documents mentioned in condition (e). The only ground for rejection was the mismatch in truck numbers on documents. The Tribunal examined the invoices, VAT 38 Challans, and the CA Certificate, noting that the truck numbers were consistent across these documents, with minor typographical errors. The CA Certificate corroborated the details in the invoices and VAT 38 Challans, indicating a procedural lapse rather than a substantive issue.

The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority erred in not considering the CA Certificate as supporting evidence. It emphasized that the substantial benefit of the notification should not be denied to the appellant due to procedural errors when all other conditions were fulfilled. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowed the appeal, and directed the sanctioning of the balance refund amount. The decision highlighted the importance of substantive compliance over procedural formalities under the notification, ensuring the appellant received the entitled benefit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning behind the decision, focusing on the compliance with notification conditions, the significance of supporting documentation, and the Tribunal's interpretation of procedural lapses in the refund process.