2017 (3) TMI 1092 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - original documents including bill of entry not available - Held that - bill of entry is nowhere required to be submitted in original. Secondly, the Circular No.06/2008-CUS provides that the Bill of Entry may be defaced. The word may indicate that it would be preferably done but not essentially done - thus, the filing of the original Bill of Entry is not an essential document for processing of refund in terms of N/N.. 102/2007 -CUS read with N/N. 06/2008-CUS - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Whether the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rightly directed to allow the refund of SAD to the respondent-assessee despite the loss of original documents including the Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
1. The respondent-assessee imported Aluminium scrap and filed refund claims for refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim due to the loss of original Bill of Entry, stating it as a statutory requirement.
2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, directing the refund to be granted by verifying available documents. The Commissioner noted that the original Bill of Entry is not a mandatory requirement for processing the refund claim and that photocopies can be accepted.
3. The Revenue argued that the original Bill of Entry is essential for granting a refund as per CBEC Circular, which requires defacement of the Bill of Entry upon refund.
4. The Tribunal held that the filing of the original Bill of Entry is not essential for processing the refund, as per Notification No. 102/2007-CUS and Circular No.06/2008-CUS. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within 60 days with interest.

This judgment clarifies that the loss of original documents, such as the Bill of Entry, does not automatically disqualify an assessee from claiming a legitimate refund. The Tribunal emphasized that the submission of photocopies, even if the original is missing, can suffice for processing the refund claim. The decision highlights the importance of verifying available documents and following procedures rather than solely relying on the presence of original documents.