Appeal success: Full refund granted for Special Additional Duty paid on goods.

The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of the balance refund claim. The appellant, who had sold all goods covered by the Bill of Entry, was deemed entitled to the full refund of the Special Additional Duty amount paid. The rejection of the balance claim based on a clerical error in the initial refund claim amount was considered unjustified. The Member (Judicial) emphasized that the Board Circular did not apply in this case, as it pertained to situations where only a part of the quantity covered by a Bill of Entry was sold.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on Circular No.16/2008-Customs
Appellant's claim for balance refund amount of Rs. 1 lakh
Applicability of Board Circular on refund claims

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning the refund of a special amount claimed by the appellant, which was denied by the Authorities based on Circular No.16/2008-Customs. The appellant, engaged in trading various items, paid a duty of Rs. 2,24,672 in respect of a Bill of Entry dated 15/12/2014, erroneously claimed a refund of Rs. 1,24,672, and later filed a claim for the balance of Rs. 1 lakh. The Authorities rejected the balance claim citing that the refund claim for the Bill of Entry had already been settled as per the Circular. The appellant contended that the clerical error in mentioning the refund amount should not justify the denial of the balance claim, as they were entitled to the refund of the entire Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid.

The Member (Judicial) agreed with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the Board Circular pertained to situations where only a part of the quantity covered by a Bill of Entry was sold, restricting the refund to that part. Since the appellant had sold the entire quantity covered by the Bill of Entry, they were entitled to the refund of the entire SAD amount paid. The rejection of the balance claim was deemed unjustified, especially considering the clerical nature of the error in the initial refund claim amount. The appellant's submission of a Chartered Accountant certificate indicating the clerical mistake further supported their case.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned decision, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The ruling highlighted that the denial of the balance refund claim was unwarranted, given that the appellant had sold all goods covered by the Bill of Entry and was entitled to the full refund of the SAD amount paid.

---