CESTAT allows SAD refund appeal after authority wrongly rejected claim over invoice description mismatch with imported goods

CESTAT Mumbai allowed appeal challenging rejection of special additional duty (SAD) refund. Original authority rejected refund solely because sale invoice descriptions didn't match imported goods descriptions in bill of entry covering multiple lots with varying dimensions. CESTAT found appellant's software limitations prevented complete descriptions on invoices, but RG23D register provided missing details. Authority failed to verify invoice genuineness or seek clarification before denial. CESTAT held refund denial improper, set aside impugned order, and remanded matter to original authority for fresh decision based on correspondence between invoices and RG23D register, with refund denial permitted only where evidence shows goods consumed by importer or not sold within one year of import.

---

---

Issues involved:
The rejection of claim for refund of special additional duty (SAD) u/s 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on import of 'prime alloy steel hot rolled coils' under notification no. 102/2007-Customs dated 14th September 2007 due to non-compliance with conditions in the notification.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim due to mismatch in descriptions on sale invoices and bill of entry:

The appeal challenged the rejection of the claim for refund of special additional duty (SAD) levied on import of steel coils. The original authority rejected the claim citing discrepancies in the descriptions on sale invoices compared to the bill of entry. The appellant explained that the software used had limitations in displaying complete descriptions, which was supported by certification from the software supplier. However, the authority emphasized the importance of matching descriptions for correlation between imported and sold goods, despite the assessment being based on size, which was not relevant for SAD. The first appellate authority upheld the rejection, expressing concerns about possible manipulation and lack of uniformity in sale invoices. The Tribunal found the denial of refund improper, directing a re-visit of the claim based on the correspondence between invoices and supporting documents.

Issue 2: Interpretation of conditions for refund under the exemption notification:

The Tribunal emphasized the sole criterion for refund entitlement as sale and payment of tax on sale, with conditions in the exemption notification aimed at ensuring integrity. The strict interpretation of the notification, as seen in the lower authorities' decisions, was deemed to be excessive, especially in relying on circulars beyond notification stipulations. The Tribunal clarified that correlation between duty paid and goods sold was the key, and any insinuation of additional conditions beyond the notification was unwarranted. The denial of refund was deemed improper, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision based on the appellant's submissions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision on the refund claim, emphasizing the need to verify the correspondence between invoices and supporting documents. The denial of refund was considered improper, and the Tribunal directed a re-evaluation based on the evidence provided by the appellant.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 13 / 06 / 2024)

---