Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Pradhin Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port-Export), Chennai - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (04 Apr 2024)

When documents established that goods imported co-relates with the invoices, refund should not be denied on some minor variation in describing goods

MANU/CC/0111/2024

Customs

In facts of present case, the Appellant filed refund claim for refund of Special Additional Duty paid by them at the time of import of goods as under Notification No.102/2007 as amended. The original authorities rejected the refund claim observing that the description of the goods in the bill of entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices. The Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Hence, present appeal.

The refund claim has been rejected observing that, the description of the goods in the bills of entry does not corelate with the description mentioned in the sales invoices. Present Tribunal have perused the description given in the bills of entry as well as the sales invoices. The description of goods in the bills of entry is shown as 'HR Plates'. The description given in some of the sales invoices are 'MS Plates and HR Plates'. The description given in the bill of entry is on the basis of classification of the goods for payment of duty. The Appellant has described the goods as 'MS Plates' and 'HR Sheets' for the reason that they are known as such in the market on the basis of variation in thickness. Present Tribunal is convinced with the explanation put forward for the variation in the description and is satisfactory.

Further, the Appellant had produced Chartered Accountant certificate as well as the correlation statements along with the refund claim. In such circumstances, the original authority ought not to have denied the refund claim. The Tribunal in the case of Ganesha Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea-Import)held that, when the documents established that goods imported co-relates with the invoices, the refund should not be denied on some minor variation in describing the goods.

The High Court in the case of P.P. Products Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, held that when the CA certificate is produced the same cannot be brushed aside without proper reason. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has not put forward any finding as to disregard the CA certificate. In such circumstances, the refund claim ought to be allowed. The Appellant is eligible for refund. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : REFUND CLAIM   DENIAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved