CESTAT allows refund appeals for imported timber logs despite cutting/sawing and minor invoice discrepancies under Notification 102/2007-Cus

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeals against recovery of sanctioned refund for imported timber logs where SAD was paid. Revenue sought recovery citing timber was cut and sawn before sale, non-endorsement of declaration under Notification 102/2007-Cus, and invoice discrepancies including missing Bills of Entry numbers. CESTAT held refund cannot be denied for cutting/sawing timber logs following SC precedent in Variety Lumbers. Non-endorsement issue irrelevant as appellant was unregistered dealer unable to take credit. Minor invoice discrepancies insufficient for refund recovery given Chartered Accountant certified stock report was submitted, following Overseas Polymers precedent. Recovery order set aside.

---

---

Issues involved: Recovery of refund, imposition of penalty, mismatch of description, procedural violations, limitation, non-endorsement of declaration, mismatch of Bills of Entry number.

The appeal was filed against the order seeking to recover the refund already sanctioned to the appellant and against the imposition of penalty on the Director of the appellant company. The primary issue was the mismatch between the item imported (timber logs) and the item sold (saw logs) by the appellant, leading to a demand for recovery of the refund. Another issue raised was the procedural violations and mismatch of description as per Notification 102/2007-Cus. The appellant argued that the refund cannot be denied even if the imported logs were cut and sawn before sale, citing legal precedents such as the Variety Lumbers case. The issue of limitation was also raised, pointing out that the demand for recovery was barred by limitation.

Regarding the mismatch of description and procedural violations, the appellant argued that small discrepancies in the description of goods should not disentitle them from the refund, supported by various legal decisions. The issue of non-endorsement of the declaration as per Notification 102/2007-Cus was raised, with the appellant contending that as they were not registered dealers, the question of taking credit on the invoices did not arise. The issue of mismatch of Bills of Entry number and description on the invoices was also addressed, with the appellant providing a Chartered Accountant certified stock report to support their claim.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and referred to legal precedents, including the Variety Lumbers case, to conclude that the appellant was entitled to the refund. They rejected the grounds raised by the Revenue, including the argument that refund is not admissible if the imported logs are sold as cut and sawn wood. The Tribunal also dismissed the objections related to non-endorsement of the declaration and mismatch of Bills of Entry number, emphasizing that minor discrepancies should not be the basis for the recovery of the refund when supported by a Chartered Accountant certified stock report. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeals, including that of the Director.

---