9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und for 55 Bills of Entry on the ground that they have not produced original duty paid challans and the items imported was Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) and cleared as per sales invoices shown as Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE). Assessee had filed an appeal against this rejection of 55 Bills of Entry before the Commissioner (A), who in the impugned order dated 6.2.2012 had allowed refund in the case of 41 Bills of Entry on the ground that whether the item is LDPE / LLDPE the liability to tax is 4% and since the invoices are prepared keeping in mind the Kerala Value Added Tax (VAT) the mismatch cannot be attributed for the deliberate intend to claim refund without payment of VAT. The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund claims on 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. C/961/2012 filed by the Revenue, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner (A) was not correct in allowing the refund in 41 Bills of Entry as the description did not match and there has been no Chartered Accountant certificate for claiming that VAT was paid on all those imported products. However, the assesse claim that the Chartered Accountant certificate was produced before the original authority which has been acknowledged in the order itself and the grounds cannot go beyond the findings of the original authority in as much as the rejection was only on difference in description which has been allowed by the Commissioner (A). He also relied upon the following judgments: (i) Overseas Polym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e event, we hold that the rejection of refund claim requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 4.2 In the case of Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal in paragraph 5 held that: "5. The issue is the rejection of the refund claim alleging that there is mismatch with regard to the description of goods in the sales invoices when compared to the Bills of Entry. On perusal of the documents placed before us, we find that in page-20 the sales invoice describes the goods as "ENABLE 3505HH (LDPE)", whereas in the Bills of Entry the product is described as "ENABLE 3505HH (LLDPE)". In pages 50-74, the appellant has produced the Chartered Accountant's Certificate along with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Account on due date, is taken on record by the original authority. It is also seen that the Chartered Accountant has already certified that in all the Bills of Entry where SAD is paid, the goods have been cleared on payment of VAT, which is also taken on record by the original authority without any dispute, therefore, the question of denying the refund only on the ground that original documents were not produced and the description did not tally is no longer valid in view of the above decisions of the Tribunal.
5. In the result, appeal No. C/1056/2012 filed by the assesse is allowed and appeal No. C/961/2012 filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court.) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
