2023 (4) TMI 511 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - it is alleged that appellant have not passed of the burden of 4% SAD to their customers - fulfilment of all the conditions for grant of refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus or not - HELD THAT - The part of the refund claim of Rs. 1,45,754.45 have been rejected on surmises relying on the communication dated 22.03.2016 of the DRI, Jaipur. This document is not made RUD in the show cause notice. Thus, the said communication has got no evidentiary value. Further the appellant have led sufficient evidence that they have sold the machines imported under the eight bills of entry, in respect of which, the present refund claim was filed, totalling Rs. 14,35,763.80 - further it is found that none of the evidence led by the appellant before the court below, have been found to be incorrect. The rejection of the part refund claim of Rs. 1,45,754.45 is set aside - the Adjudicating Authority are directed to grant the refund of this amount within a period of 45 days alongwith interest as per rules - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The rejection of refund of "SAD" (Special Additional Duty) in part.

Comprehensive Details:
The appellant, an importer of paper cup machines, filed a refund claim for SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for 127 machines. The revenue noted that some machines were seized, indicating they were not sold. The appellant contended they had sold the machines as per invoices and stock register. The Adjudicating Authority allowed a partial refund, rejecting a portion of the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that reliance on a DRI communication was erroneous, presenting evidence such as sales vouchers, tax returns, stock register, and a Chartered Accountant Certificate. They questioned the logic of depositing taxes and then claiming a refund without actual sales. The appellant disputed the seizure's relevance to the bills of entry and highlighted the oversight of their affidavit. The revenue supported the impugned order.

The Tribunal found the rejection of part of the refund claim based on the DRI communication to be unfounded as it was not part of the show cause notice. The appellant's evidence of selling the imported machines was deemed sufficient, totaling the refund claim amount. None of the appellant's evidence was found to be inaccurate. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within 45 days with interest.

*(Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.04.2023)*