2023 (7) TMI 777 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - revenue under the belief that the item imported by them i.e. industrial betel is not same as edible Betel denied the refund claim - time limitation - HELD THAT - There are details reasons given in the impugned order about the item imported and the items sold by the Baburam Harichand being the same. The co-relation between the imported goods and the goods sold by Baburam Harichand has not been contested by the revenue. The revenue appeal does not counter any arguments given by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue and the same are dismissed. Time limitation - HELD THAT - Baburam Harichand (respondent) has filed appeal against rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation. They have asserted that they had filed claim within limitation and produced prop thereof. A perusal of the appeal filed by the Baburam Harichand shows that at page 37 they have enclosed challan of payment of duty, indicating date of payment as 10.02.2011 in Appeal No. C/11729/2014 and similarly some evidence were given in Appeal No. C/11730/2014. It is notice that this evidence has not been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Baburam Harichand are allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the evidence produced by the appellant. The appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by Baburam Harichand are allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claims of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported "Betel Nuts Industrial Grade".
2. Correlation between imported goods and goods sold by Baburam Harichand.
3. Limitation period for filing refund claims.

Summary:

1. Refund Claims of SAD on Imported "Betel Nuts Industrial Grade":

Baburam Harichand filed refund claims of SAD paid on the import of "Betel Nuts Industrial Grade". The revenue denied the refund claim, believing that the imported industrial betel nuts were not the same as the edible betel nuts sold by Baburam Harichand. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, holding that edible betel nut and industrial betel nut are the same. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit for two Bills of Entry where the refund was filed beyond the limitation period.

2. Correlation Between Imported Goods and Goods Sold:

The Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed findings on the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold by Baburam Harichand. It was noted that there was no allegation of non-payment of VAT on the sale of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced various sources, including HSN, tariff descriptions, and DGFT, to substantiate that areca nut, betel nut, and supari are the same product. The Commissioner also emphasized that the objections raised by the adjudicating authority regarding the name, nature, and status of the importer or buyers of imported goods were irrelevant for granting the refund under Notification 102/2007.

3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:

The Commissioner (Appeals) maintained that the refund claims for two Bills of Entry were filed beyond the one-year limitation period specified in Notification 102/2007 as amended by Notification 93/2008-Cus. The refund claims were rejected for being filed three days and one day late, respectively. Baburam Harichand contested this, asserting that they had filed the claims within the limitation period and produced evidence to support their claim. This evidence was not examined by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Final Decision:

The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as the revenue did not contest the arguments given by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold by Baburam Harichand. The appeals filed by Baburam Harichand were allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the evidence produced by the appellant regarding the limitation period. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court.