2024 (4) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Special Additional Duty paid at the time of import of goods under Notification No.102/2007 - Original authorities rejected the refund claim observing that the description of the goods in the bill of entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices - HELD THAT - The appellant has described the goods as MS Plates and HR Sheets for the reason that they are known as such in the market on the basis of variation in thickness. I am convinced with the explanation put forward for the variation in the description and is satisfactory. Further, the appellant had produced Chartered Accountant certificate as well as the correlation statements along with the refund claim. In such circumstances the original authority ought not to have denied the refund claim. The Tribunal in the case of Ganesha Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea-Import), 2019 (3) TMI 1949 - CESTAT CHENNAI had occasion to consider a similar issue. The Tribunal held that when the documents established that of the goods imported co-related with the invoices, the refund should not be denied on some minor variation in describing the goods. The Hon ble jurisdiction of High Court in the case of P.P. Products Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2019 (5) TMI 830 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that when the CA certificate is produced the same cannot be brushed aside without proper reason. In the present case the adjudicating authority has not put forward any finding as to disregard the CA certificate. In such circumstances the refund claim ought to be allowed. I hold that the appellant is eligible for refund. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim for Special Additional Duty paid at the time of import under Notification No.102/2007 as amended rejected due to discrepancy in description of goods in bill of entry and sales invoices.

Summary:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty paid during import, which was rejected by the original authorities citing a mismatch in the description of goods between the bill of entry and sales invoices. The appellant contended that the description in the bill of entry was based on duty classification, while the sales invoices used different terms due to local market practices. The appellant provided a Chartered Accountant certificate and correlation statements to support their claim. The Tribunal noted that minor discrepancies in descriptions should not disqualify the importer from receiving a refund, as long as the goods imported align with the invoices. The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified and allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In a similar vein, the Tribunal referenced a case where the High Court emphasized the importance of Chartered Accountant certificates in refund claims. Since the adjudicating authority did not provide valid reasons to disregard the CA certificate in this case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant and allowed the refund claim.