https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754175 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. en-us Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:31:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754175 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. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754175