2018 (7) TMI 347 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. Dated 14.9.207 - rejection on the ground that the appellant has not furnished Chartered Accountant's certificate so as to correlate the payment of VAT with the refund claim of the appellant, the sales invoices do not contain endorsement as required under 2(b) of the conditions stated in the notification, description of the goods given in the Bills of Entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices and also on the ground that the CHA inadvertently had stated the goods as 9200 sq. mt. instead of 9200 rolls. Rejection on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Chartered Accountant's certificate as required under the notification - Held that - Since the authorities below have not discussed or verified the said Chartered Accountant's certificate and merely rejected finding that the certificate has not been produced, we are of the considered opinion that this issue requires to be remitted for verification of the Chartered Accountant's certificate - matter on remand. Rejection on the ground that the sales invoices do not bear the endorsement as required under condition 2(b) of the Notification - Held that - The said issue stands covered by the decision in the case of Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , where it was held that Since the object and purpose of the condition is achieved by non-specification of the duty element the mere non-making of the endorsement could not have undermined the purpose of the exemption - the rejection of refund on this ground is unjustified. Rejection on the ground that the description of the goods given in the Bills of Entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices - Held that - So also the goods have been particularly mentioned with regard to their nature as to plain finish. This cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim since the goods sold are very much clear from the invoice. Refund has been rejected for the reason that the units of the goods is mentioned wrongly as 9200 rolls instead of 9200 square feet - Held that - This was only an inadvertent error and the same cannot be a reason for rejecting the refund - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim rejection based on various grounds under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, discrepancy in Bills of Entry and sales invoices, requirement of Chartered Accountant's certificate, endorsement on sales invoices, and incorrect description of goods.

Analysis:

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellants contested the rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The grounds for rejection included failure to submit Chartered Accountant's certificate, lack of required endorsement on sales invoices, and discrepancies in the description of goods between Bills of Entry and sales invoices.

Chartered Accountant's Certificate:
In Appeal No. C/41338/2014, the appellant's refund was rejected due to the alleged non-submission of the Chartered Accountant's certificate. However, the appellant had indeed provided the certificate, which was not considered by the authorities. The Tribunal decided to remit this issue for verification of the certificate.

Endorsement on Sales Invoices:
The rejection of refunds based on the absence of required endorsements on sales invoices was challenged. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, it was held that this ground for rejection was unjustified, and the issue was resolved in favor of the appellants across all appeals.

Description Discrepancy:
Another issue arose from discrepancies in the description of goods between Bills of Entry and sales invoices. The appellant's argument that the minor discrepancies did not warrant refund rejection was supported by case law. The Tribunal found the rejection on this ground to be unjustified and ruled in favor of the appellants.

Incorrect Mention of Units:
In Appeal No. C/41362/2015, the rejection was based on the incorrect mention of units in the documentation. The Tribunal deemed this error as inadvertent and not substantial enough to justify refund rejection, thus ruling in favor of the appellant on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in Appeal No. C/41338/2014 for further verification of the Chartered Accountant's certificate. For the other appeals, the rejection of refunds was overturned, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment addressed and resolved all issues raised by the appellants, except for the specific verification of the Chartered Accountant's certificate in one appeal.