Tribunal orders refund of Rs. 31,00,000 after appeal success due to bank's clerical error

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier order, and remanded the case back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision within two months. The Tribunal considered the email correspondence from the bank's Branch Manager as proof that the disputed draft was deposited by the appellant, attributing the rejection to a clerical error. Verification of documents submitted by the appellant confirmed the deposit, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant for a refund of Rs. 31,00,000.

---

---

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on draft not deposited in appellant's name.

Analysis:
1. The appellant deposited two demand drafts totaling Rs. 65,00,000, out of which a fine and penalty of Rs. 17,00,000 was imposed by the Customs Act, 1962, with the balance sought as a refund.

2. The Refund Sanctioning Authority allowed a refund of Rs. 29,47,176 but rejected the claim for Rs. 31,00,000 as it was not deposited in the appellant's name, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant provided proof that the disputed draft of Rs. 31,00,000 was indeed deposited by them, supported by email correspondence from the bank's Branch Manager confirming the transaction from the appellant's account.

4. The rejection was based on the lack of a reply from the bank's official email ID, which was later proven to be untrue upon verification of documents submitted by the appellant.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the email reply as proof that the draft was drawn from the appellant's account, attributing the discrepancy to a clerical error and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision based on the verified bank documents.

6. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the earlier order set aside, and the case remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision within two months, emphasizing the verification of documents and compliance reporting within the same period.

---