2024 (10) TMI 466 - AT - Customs

Refund of 4% SAD levied u/s 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - rejection of refund claim on the ground of mis-match of the description of goods and non-replying to the deficiency memo - HELD THAT - The issue relating to the discrepancies in the description of the product have been held by the First Appellate Authority as not fatal which according to him cannot be basis for rejection of refund. With the DM having been issued only with respect to the description in the invoice not having tallied with import documents, the appeal should then have been allowed by him. Although the appellant has stated that revenue had pointed to a discrepancy in the amount paid towards VAT / CST and SAD, it is not reflected in the orders of either the learned Original Authority or the learned Commissioner (Appeals). There is no allegation that the VAT / CST were not paid or that the CA s Certificate along with the reconciliation statement as prescribed in Boards Circular has not been submitted or is deficient in any manner etc. The impugned order rejecting the refund is not proper and is hence set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on mis-match of goods description and non-replying to deficiency memo.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company, filed a refund application for the refund of 4% SAD levied under Sec. 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the import of 'Industrial Vacuum Cleaner and its spares' in accordance with Notification No. 102/2007. The appellant submitted all relevant documents to prove that the necessary duties, including 4% SAD, were paid, and the goods were cleared for home consumption. They also provided sales invoices, VAT/CST paid challans, and returns as evidence that the imported goods were sold, and VAT/CST were paid. Additionally, a Chartered Accountant's certificate and reconciliation statement were submitted in support of the claim. The lower authority rejected the refund claim due to discrepancies in the description and specifications of the goods in the sales invoices compared to the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the discrepancies in the goods' description and the non-replying to the deficiency memo were not fatal and should not be the basis for rejection. The counsel highlighted the differences in the description of goods in the sales invoices and the Bill of Entry, asserting that the refund should not be denied based on this mismatch. Referring to a judgment in a similar case, the counsel contended that as long as the applicable VAT/CST was paid, the refund could not be rejected solely due to a discrepancy in the rates of taxes. The Authorized Representative for the respondent reiterated the points made in the Order in Original and the impugned order, advocating for the rejection of the appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined the discrepancies in the description of goods as pointed out in the Order in Original. The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had deemed the discrepancies in the product description as non-fatal and not sufficient for refund rejection. The Tribunal observed that the deficiency memo was issued only concerning the description mismatch in the invoice and import documents, which should not have led to the appeal's rejection. There was no indication in the orders that VAT/CST payments were not made or that the CA's certificate and reconciliation statement were deficient. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order rejecting the refund to be improper and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim based on discrepancies in the goods description and the failure to respond to the deficiency memo, granting relief to the appellant.