Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants established correlation between the goods covered by the factory invoices and the goods sold under the depot invoices so as to sustain the refund claims.
Analysis: The goods were cleared from the factory on Rule 52A invoices addressed to the consignment agent's depot, but the depot invoices did not contain sufficient particulars to enable complete correlation of the goods sold from the depot with the goods received from the factory. The affidavit of the consignment agent acknowledged the address error, but it did not supply the missing particulars, and the absence of bundle serial numbers or equivalent identifying details meant that the documentary evidence was inadequate to link the two sets of invoices. In these circumstances, the finding that correlation was not established could not be faulted, and without such correlation the refund claims had no factual foundation.
Conclusion: The refund claims were not maintainable for want of correlation, and the departmental recovery was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim based on depot sales must be supported by documentary evidence enabling clear correlation between the goods cleared from the factory and the goods sold from the depot; where such correlation is not established, the refund lacks factual basis.