2024 (10) TMI 406 - AT - Customs

Refund for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Commissioner (Appeals) before passing the impugned order failed to give a personal hearing to the appellant though a representation was made through counsel - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is found that the fact that no personal hearing was given to the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) inspite of a request for the same is itself fatal to revenue s case. On merit, it is found that the appellant has satisfactorily explained that duty for the four bills of entry were initially debited in DEPB script while filing the bills of entry i.e. on 31.05.2011 and the remaining duty was paid on the next day. The same was also easily verifiable from the documents submitted. There is no dispute that the appellant has paid the VAT on all the goods and No credit of Additional Duty of Customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 have been availed/shall be admissible is endorsed on the invoices. This being so, a case of unjust enrichment does not arise and the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 have been complied with. Hence, the impugned order rejecting refund of the subject 4 bills of entry is liable to be set aside even on merits. The Hon ble Madras High Court in its judgment in PP PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI SEAPORT COMMISSIONERATE-IV 2019 (5) TMI 830 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , examined whether the Tribunal, in the face of documentary evidence produced by the appellant, was correct in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, holding that there was no correction between the imports and subsequent sales? - It held ' The explanation offered by the appellant/importer is that the numbers which followed the letters HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE are relevant only for person who is importing goods from the foreign country on orders being placed by the appellant and is of no consequence on the sale while selling the product in the local market. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority has not come to a conclusion that the product sold was entirely different. In fact, there was nothing on record to disbelieve the Chartered Accountant s certificate which certified that both products are one and the same. If the adjudicating authority had to disbelieve such certification, then there should have been material to do so. However, the larger question would be whether at all such jurisdiction is vested with the adjudicating authority, when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation against the appellant.' The impugned order rejecting the refund claims is not proper. The same is hence set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order in Appeal No. C.Cus No.1564/2014 dated 26.08.2014 - Refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Failure to provide personal hearing by Commissioner (Appeals) - Dispute regarding Chartered Accountant's certificate and duty payment dates - Compliance with Notification No. 102/2007 - Unjust enrichment claim - Compliance with conditions for refund - Rejection of refund for 4 bills of entry.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Shriram Impex India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the Order in Appeal No. C.Cus No.1564/2014 dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, regarding a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD). The department appealed against the refund sanctioned for 4 specific Bills of Entry dated 31.05.2011. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide a personal hearing despite a representation through counsel. The appellant argued that the Chartered Accountant's certificate did not cover the duty payment dates for the 4 bills of entry and that the duty had not been passed on to customers. The appellant maintained that the refund claim complied with Notification No. 102/2007 and that VAT had been paid on all goods, with a specific endorsement on local invoices regarding the Additional Duty of Customs. The appellant sought the appeal to be allowed.

The Authorized Representative for the respondent supported the findings of the lower authorities. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the lack of a personal hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be fatal to the revenue's case. The Tribunal noted that the duty for the 4 bills of entry was initially debited in DEPB script on 31.05.2011, with the remaining duty paid the following day. The appellant's payment of VAT on all goods and the specific endorsement on invoices indicated no unjust enrichment, meeting the conditions of Notification No. 102/2007. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the refund for the 4 bills of entry should be set aside, both due to procedural irregularity and on merit.

Referring to a judgment by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in P.P. Products Ltd. v. Commissioner, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence for refund claims, including payment evidence, sales invoices, and tax payment proof. The Court's decision highlighted the necessity for a thorough examination of documents and cautioned against rejecting claims based on minor discrepancies in product descriptions. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order rejecting the refund claims was improper and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly on 08.10.2024.