2018 (4) TMI 1254 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns refund claim rejections, cites minor discrepancies not grounds for denial

Tarajyot Polymers Ltd and Chakrapani Vyapar Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Tarajyot Polymers Ltd and Chakrapani Vyapar Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:Refund claim rejection under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. Dt.14/9/2007 as amended.Analysis:1. Issue of Description Discrepancy in Bill of Entry and Sales Invoices:- The main contention was the difference in the description of goods between the Bill of Entry and sales invoices. The appellant imported various grades of plastic granules but the sales invoices mentioned only generic terms like plastic granules. The Tribunal held that minor differences in descriptions do not negate the right to a refund. It was emphasized that the goods imported were the same as those sold, and the rejection based on this ground was deemed incorrect.2. Proof of Consignment Sale Agreement:- The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected refund claims in some cases due to the absence of proof regarding consignment sale agreements. However, the Tribunal noted that in one instance, the appellant had submitted the consignment sale agreement copy. The rejection on this ground was considered baseless as there was no dispute regarding the discharge of VAT/Sales Tax.3. Endorsement Requirement in Invoices:- Another reason for rejection was the absence of required endorsements in the invoices regarding Cenvat credit admissibility on SAD paid. The Tribunal referred to a precedent to rule that such rejection was unjustified, and the refund claim should not be denied based on this ground.4. Liability to Pay Sales Tax in Consignment Sale Agreement:- In cases where the rejection was due to the absence of specific mention in the consignment sale agreement about the liability to pay sales tax, the Tribunal found the rejection unfounded. It was clarified that when there was no dispute over the payment of sales tax, the absence of explicit agreement clauses did not justify the rejection of refund claims.5. Overall Decision:- The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing all the appeals with consequential reliefs. The decisions were based on the findings that the reasons for rejection provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not hold ground legally, and the appellants were entitled to the refunds as claimed.This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the legal reasoning and outcomes for each aspect involved in the refund claim rejections under the specified notification.