2020 (4) TMI 450 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - Rejection on the ground that there is a mis-match of description of the goods and the goods imported by the appellant were not the same which were sold by the appellant - HELD THAT - This fact could have been verified by the authorities after verifying the records of the appellant itself who claims that the goods sold by them are the same goods which have been imported and the Revenue alleging that these are not the same goods; therefore, onus is on the Revenue to prove that the goods sold by the appellant are not the same goods which have been imported. The SAD is paid on importation of the goods to safe guard the revenue of the state i.e. VAT/CST. As the same has been paid by the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of SAD paid by them at the time of importation of the goods in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on mis-match in goods description.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for additional duty of customs paid on importation of 'Acrylic Fibre Dyed' sold as 'Acrylic Fibre'. The claim was rejected due to a mis-match in goods description. The appellant argued that since they paid State Revenue (VAT/CST) on the goods, they are entitled to the refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. They contended that the incidence of SAD was not passed on to the buyer. The Revenue rejected the claim stating the onus was on the appellant to prove the goods were the same. The appellant cited precedents where similar claims were allowed. The Revenue argued the difference between 'Acrylic Fibre Dyed' and 'Acrylic Fibre' was significant, and the appellant failed to prove the goods were identical.

The Tribunal noted the key issue was the mis-match in goods description leading to the rejection of the refund claim. It was emphasized that the authorities should have verified if the goods sold were the same as those imported. The onus was on the Revenue to prove the goods sold were different. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's payment of SAD was to safeguard State revenue and, as such, they were entitled to the refund. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting the appellant's claim. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that a mere mis-match in goods description should not be the sole reason to deny a refund claim. The decision underscored the importance of verifying the goods' identity and upheld the appellant's entitlement to the refund based on the payment made to safeguard State revenue.