9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RG23D register in which removals had been recorded which would, at least, provide details lacking in the description of the goods corresponding to the respective invoices. If at all, there were any doubts about the genuineness of the invoices, that could have been verified and claimant put to notice of intention to deny refund for that reason. The claimant could have been asked to demonstrate through the documents furnished that the invoices pertain to the imported goods. No such evidence is forthcoming and no such effort was undertaken. Consequently, it is found that the denial of refund is improper. In the scheme of exemption, it would be appropriate for the original authority to re-visit the claim for refund to ascertain the corresponden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 dated 3rd June 2015] now impugned before us. 2. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorized Representative at length. 3. It would appear that the sole ground for rejection was that the description in the sale invoices did not match the descriptions of the imported goods in the bill of entry which comprised several lots of varying dimensions that, principally, had been sorted according to thickness and width. Before the original authority, who found all other requirements to be in order, it was submitted that the software deployed by them had limitation of characters that could be placed in the said field and that this was so had been certified by the supplier of the software which was also produced. The original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices are submitted in support of the claim. From the discussions in the preceding pars it can be seen that the sale invoices do not pertain to the imported goods. Therefore xxxxxxxxxxx claims does not satisfy the condition of Para 2 (e)(ii) 2(e)(iii) of the Notification No. 102/07 dated 14.09.2007. Hence they are not admissible to the benefit of the aforesaid notification on merits . It is, thus, on record that explanation for truncating of descriptions in the sales invoice had been furnished but was not taken cognizance of by the original authority. It is also noticed that the adjudicating authority was convinced that correlation to that level of detail was essential owing to the assessment having been determined by the size. Here, the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otally devoid of these very relevant details. The Appellants plea regarding use of old software does not entitle them to unjustified benefits. Further, the limitation of the software does not absolve them of their responsibility to ensure that the important characters with respect to the description of goods were fed in the sales invoices. In view of the Circular No. 15/2010-Cus dated 29.06.2010, it is understood that) the possibility exists where one can manipulate the facts by not showing the correct description of goods on the invoices for availing the refund. Hence this is an important aspect which has to be scrutinized before sanctioning of the claim. Since the description of the goods with respect to relevant and identifiable paramete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon and not if not. The sentiment of strict interpretation of exemption notification, espoused in the impugned order, works both ways and, to the extent that the lower authorities have felt obliged to follow circular no. 15/2010-Cus dated 29th June 2010 of Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) beyond the stipulations in the notification, especially for discarding the claim of limitation of software as well as supplementary evidence and to insist that correlation is not evident, the finding must be invalidated. 6. There are only two channels for imported goods after clearance either use by importer for further processing or sale in domestic market and, except by passing the former as the latter, no manipulation is conceivable. It is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the lower authorities in the present dispute. The exemption notification does not provide for any lack, other than the conditions found in second paragraph thereto, as ground for denial of the refund as is evident from 3. The jurisdictional customs officer shall sanction the refund on satisfying himself that the conditions referred to in para 2 above, are fulfilled in the notification. The strict application of exemption notifications espoused by the lower authorities does not permit insinuation of any condition beyond that stipulated therein. 7. Though the lower authorities have held that condition (e) in the second paragraph of the said notification had not been complied with, in effect, the rest of the order speaks otherwise. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
