https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757360 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal for refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The department rejected the refund claim citing discrepancies in goods description and brand names in invoices compared to Bills of Entry. The Tribunal held that minor discrepancies cannot justify rejection when appellant produced required Chartered Accountant certificate and reconciliation statement per Board's Circular. Following precedents from CESTAT Mumbai and Madras HC, the Tribunal ruled that without incriminating evidence or clear reasons for disbelieving the certificate, and absent proof that sold goods differed from imported goods, the refund rejection was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757360 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal for refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The department rejected the refund claim citing discrepancies in goods description and brand names in invoices compared to Bills of Entry. The Tribunal held that minor discrepancies cannot justify rejection when appellant produced required Chartered Accountant certificate and reconciliation statement per Board's Circular. Following precedents from CESTAT Mumbai and Madras HC, the Tribunal ruled that without incriminating evidence or clear reasons for disbelieving the certificate, and absent proof that sold goods differed from imported goods, the refund rejection was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757360