Refund of special additional duty sustained despite LDPE and LLDPE description mismatch, as no deliberate misstatement was shown.

Refund of special additional duty was upheld where the sales invoices described the goods as LDPE and the imported goods as LLDPE, because the invoices and bills of entry were correlated, the mismatch was limited to one word, and the goods sold and imported were found to be substantially the same. The discrepancy was treated as unintentional, the tax treatment of LDPE and LLDPE was the same, and there was no basis to infer a deliberate attempt to claim refund without payment of tax. A chartered accountant's certificate was produced and the departmental circular discouraged detailed investigation where such certification was available, so no prima facie case for stay was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether a stay should be granted against the order allowing refund of special additional duty on the ground that the sales invoices described the goods as LDPE while the imported goods were LLDPE.

Analysis: The order-in-appeal recorded that the invoices and bills of entry had been correlated, the description mismatch was only of one word in the invoice, the goods sold and imported were substantially the same, and the discrepancy was unintentional. It was further noted that the tax treatment of LDPE and LLDPE was the same, there was no scope for any deliberate attempt to claim refund without payment of tax, a chartered accountant's certificate had been produced, and the departmental circular advised against detailed investigation where such certificate was available.

Conclusion: No prima facie case for stay was made out and the request for stay was rejected.

---