2018 (11) TMI 1399 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dt. 14/09/2007 - denial on the ground that there is a mis-match between the imported goods and the goods sold by the appellant - Held that - CBEC vide Circular No.6/2008 Cus. dt. 28/04/2008 has clarified that the document evidencing payment of VAT/ST duly issued by or acknowledged by the concerned VAT/ST authorities shall be submitted by the importer. The CBEC has also clarified that a certificate from the statutory auditor certifying that the importers' annual financial accounts under the Companies Act or any statutory act correlating the payment of service tax / VAT on the imported goods that the invoices of sale would be sufficient proof of payment of appropriate VAT for the purpose of the said notification. The appellants have produced Chartered Accountant certificates in each of the appeals certifying the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold. The certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant have not been considered at all by the authorities below and consequently they have rejected the refund claim on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions of the notification which according to me is not tenable in law specifically when the Chartered Accountant have certified the correlation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on mis-match between imported goods and goods sold.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against orders rejecting refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. due to mis-match between imported goods and goods sold. The appellant imported Linear Low Density Polythylene granules but sold goods described as 'Plastic Granules'. The original authority and Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the refund claim. The appellant argued that they complied with Circular No.6/2008-Cus. by submitting Chartered Accountant certificates correlating imports and sales. The Revenue claimed mis-match based on descriptions in invoices and Bill of Entry. The AR cited cases supporting mis-match rejection.

The Tribunal analyzed Circular No.6/2008-Cus. which requires documents proving VAT/ST payment and correlation between imports and sales. The Chartered Accountant certificates provided by the appellant were not considered by lower authorities. The Tribunal found the rejection based solely on description variation untenable, especially when Chartered Accountants certified the correlation. Citing the Damodar Trade Links Ltd. case, the Tribunal held mere description variation insufficient for refund claim rejection. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering Chartered Accountant certificates in establishing correlation between imported and sold goods. The judgment highlighted that minor variations in descriptions between invoices and Bill of Entry should not be the sole basis for rejecting refund claims. The decision provided relief to the appellants by overturning the refund claim rejections.