2015 (2) TMI 298 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - exemption from special CVD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - Adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim - Commissioner (appeals) rejected the refund claim - Held that - impugned order is cryptic and have failed to take notice of the categorical findings recorded in the Order-in-Original. Thus, the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the Order-in-Original is restored - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim disallowed under special CVD exemption; Compliance with invoice requirements; Contravention of C.B.E. & C. directions; Unjust enrichment assessment; Jurisdictional authority for refund claim submission.

In this case, the appellant, engaged in importing various articles for resale under a special CVD exemption, had their refund claim disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on several grounds. Firstly, it was noted that the importer failed to fulfill the condition of indicating in the invoice that no credit of the additional duty of Customs shall be admissible. Secondly, the importer was found to have contravened C.B.E. & C. directions by filing multiple claims against a single bill of entry. The issue of unjust enrichment was also raised, where the adjudicating authority concluded that the importer had not passed on the burden of duty to consumers based on a Balance Sheet entry, without examining corroborative evidence. Additionally, the jurisdictional authority for refund claim submission was questioned as the bills of entry were not submitted to the correct authority as per law.

The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering specific findings in the Order-in-Original. They highlighted that state government levies had been paid, and sales invoices indicated the inadmissibility of additional duty credit. The appellant also pointed out that the refund claim was in line with prescribed timelines and exceptions provided in Circular No. 6/2008. They provided Chartered Accountant certificates and evidence of VAT/CST payments to support their claim of fulfilling unjust enrichment requirements. Furthermore, the appellant cited a precedent to support their argument on jurisdictional authority for refund claims.

After considering the arguments, the judge found merit in the appellant's submissions on all points. The impugned order was deemed cryptic and failed to acknowledge the detailed findings in the Order-in-Original. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, and the Order-in-Original was reinstated, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment highlights the importance of thorough consideration of evidence and compliance with legal requirements in refund claim cases to ensure fair adjudication.