2021 (3) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - refund rejected on the ground that the imported goods were sold prior to issuance of out of charge order by the Customs - benefit of N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - HELD THAT - The said issue has been settled in the case of M/S ASHWIN CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD 2017 (8) TMI 980 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein this Tribunal has held that the refund cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the imported goods were sold prior to issuance of out of charge order by the Customs. Thus, merely the goods were sold prior to issuance of out of charge order by the Customs, the refund cannot be rejected - appeal allowed - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 due to sale of imported goods before issuance of out of charge order by Customs.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?1,89,222 under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 because the imported goods were sold before the Customs issued the out of charge order. The appellant's counsel argued that a similar issue was decided in the case of Ashwin Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad -2017 (8) TMI 980 CESTAT-Ahmedabad, where it was held that a refund cannot be denied solely based on goods being sold before the out of charge order. On the contrary, the Authorized Representative for the Respondent supported the lower authorities' findings.

The central issue in this case was whether a refund claim could be entertained under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 if the imported goods were sold before the Customs issued the out of charge order. The decision in the case of Ashwin Corporation (supra) was referred to, where it was stated that the rejection of a refund solely on the grounds of goods being sold before the out of charge order is not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere sale of goods before the Customs order does not warrant the rejection of the refund claim. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of ?1,89,222 was deemed to have no merits and was modified accordingly, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal relied on precedent to establish that the rejection of a refund claim based solely on the timing of the sale of imported goods before the Customs order is unfounded. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence, such as delivery challans, terms of agreement, reconciliation certificates, and payment details, to determine the validity of a refund claim under the specified notification. The judgment ultimately favored the appellant, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances before rejecting a refund claim.