Refund claim approved based on acceptance of duplicate copy as evidence in EDD case

The Vice-President upheld the lower appellate authority's decision in a case concerning a claim for refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) rejected due to a missing triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (A) set aside the rejection, accepting the duplicate copy as sufficient evidence. The Vice-President referenced relevant regulations and found the duplicate submission satisfactory, leading to the approval of the refund claim. Cross objections were dismissed as they did not raise new issues. The ruling was affirmed, concluding the matter.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) based on the rejection of the claim due to missing triplicate copy of Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
The case involved the importation of Lead Calcium Positive Alloy by the respondents, who warehoused the goods and filed an Exbond Bill of Entry for clearance under the Advance Licence issued under DEEC Scheme. The Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed with an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) of 1% pending clarification from the DGFT. Upon receiving clearance from the DGFT, the Bill of Entry was finally assessed to nil rate of duty, leading to a claim for refund of the EDD. However, the claim was rejected by the revenue on the grounds that the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was not submitted along with the refund claim.

During the appeal, the Commissioner (A) set aside the rejection of the claim, noting that the triplicate copy could not be produced, but the duplicate copy in original, available with the respondents, was submitted. The Vice-President, after hearing both sides, referred to Public Notice No. 436/2002 and concluded that since only two copies of the exbond Bill of Entry are generated, the production of a triplicate copy was unnecessary. It was established that the respondents had provided the duplicate exbond Bill of Entry, which was deemed sufficient for granting the claim for refund.

Based on the above analysis, the Vice-President found no reason to interfere with the decision of the lower appellate authority and upheld the ruling accordingly. The cross objections were also disposed of, as they were merely a response to the revenue's appeal, without raising any new substantive issues. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.

---