2013 (12) TMI 1148 - AT - Customs

Refund claim for SAD - Documentry evidence in support of it not produced - Held that - Agreement Extension from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011 was not asked by the department before sanctioning the refund claim. However, the same was produced when asked before the Commissioner (Appeals). We also note that the Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules 1982 is with the reference to the evidence to be produced by the appellant. In this case the above said Agreement Extension was not submitted by the appellant but by the respondent - whole matter remanded to the original authority for re-examining the matter with reference to the issues raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Needless to say that the appellant will be entitled to produce any documents relevant for the case and the adjudicating authority will pass the order after granting personal hearing - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for SAD; Validity of Consignment Sale Agreements; Consideration of Agreement Extension by the appellate authority; Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD), which was partially sanctioned by the original authority but rejected for a remaining amount. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) citing various grounds. Firstly, it was argued that the adjudicating authority did not assess the validity of the Consignment Sale Agreements. Secondly, discrepancies were noted in the documents submitted by the importer regarding the transfer of goods to the consignment agent. The Revenue contended that the refund was erroneously sanctioned due to the lack of evidence of renewal or extension of the Consignment Sale Agreement.

During the hearing, the appellant presented an Agreement Extension from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011 before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority declined to consider this new evidence, citing Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which restricts the introduction of additional evidence not presented during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the original order was overturned, and the Revenue's appeal was upheld.

Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Agreement Extension was not requested by the department during the initial refund claim assessment. Nonetheless, the document was submitted later during the appeal process. It was clarified that Rule 5 pertains to evidence presented by the appellant, and in this instance, the Agreement Extension was introduced by the respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the case to the original authority for a re-examination considering the issues raised in the Revenue's appeal. The appellant was granted the opportunity to submit relevant documents, and the adjudicating authority was directed to issue a new decision after providing a personal hearing.

Ultimately, the stay petition was granted, and the appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the importance of due process and the right to present relevant evidence in legal proceedings.