2022 (6) TMI 1224 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - rejection of refund on the ground that the same was not deposited in the name of the Appellant - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that proof of email reply fully acknowledged that demand draft was drawn with money transferred from the bank account of Appellant, it can be said without the slightest hesitation that the submission made by the Appellant before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that has been recorded in para 5 of his Order-in-Appeal are true. The obvious reason for such wrong noting of draft in someone else s name could be a clerical error and could be remanded at the Respondent-Department s ends to facilitate refund of the disputed amount to the Appellant in compliance to the provision of refund available in the Customs Act, 1962 concerning refund. It is deemed proper to remand the matter back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision upon verification of bank documents produced by the Appellant before them and received by the Respondent-Department directly from the bank - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on draft not deposited in appellant's name.

Analysis:
1. The appellant deposited two demand drafts totaling Rs. 65,00,000, out of which a fine and penalty of Rs. 17,00,000 was imposed by the Customs Act, 1962, with the balance sought as a refund.

2. The Refund Sanctioning Authority allowed a refund of Rs. 29,47,176 but rejected the claim for Rs. 31,00,000 as it was not deposited in the appellant's name, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant provided proof that the disputed draft of Rs. 31,00,000 was indeed deposited by them, supported by email correspondence from the bank's Branch Manager confirming the transaction from the appellant's account.

4. The rejection was based on the lack of a reply from the bank's official email ID, which was later proven to be untrue upon verification of documents submitted by the appellant.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the email reply as proof that the draft was drawn from the appellant's account, attributing the discrepancy to a clerical error and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision based on the verified bank documents.

6. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the earlier order set aside, and the case remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision within two months, emphasizing the verification of documents and compliance reporting within the same period.