Judge upholds decision on SAD refund claim due to thickness mismatch, insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

The judge upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the appellant's refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods due to a mismatch in thickness between the imported goods and those sold domestically. Despite the appellant's argument that the assorted sizes of the imported goods corresponded to the various thicknesses in domestic sales invoices, the judge found insufficient evidence to support this claim. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the early hearing application was disposed of, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on mismatch between imported goods and goods sold in domestic market.

Analysis:
The appeal and early hearing application were directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant, a company importing "Assorted Thickness Cold Rolled Steel Coils," filed a refund claim for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the lower appellate authority due to a discrepancy between the sizes of the imported goods and the goods sold in the domestic market. The appellant argued that the assorted sizes of the imported goods matched the various thicknesses mentioned in the domestic sales invoices. However, the authorities concluded that there was a mismatch between the imported goods' thickness and the goods sold domestically, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

The appellant contended that the goods imported were of assorted sizes, as indicated in the bill of entry, and that the description on the domestic sales invoices showing various thicknesses demonstrated that the goods sold domestically were the same as those imported. On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner argued that the authorities correctly determined that the goods sold domestically did not match the imported goods based on sales and import documents. The judge carefully examined the bill of entry, noting that while the length of the coil varied, the thickness of the imported goods remained consistent. The mismatch between the thickness of the imported goods (0.6mm, 1.0mm, 1.8mm/2.0mm) and the thickness of the goods sold domestically (0.60mm, 0.70mm, 0.80mm, 0.90mm, 1.20mm, 1.50mm) was highlighted. Consequently, the judge upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the claim that the goods sold domestically, on which VAT was paid, were the same as those imported.

In conclusion, the judge found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, along with disposing of the early hearing application. The decision was based on the mismatch between the description of the imported goods and the goods sold domestically, leading to the rejection of the appellant's refund claim.

---