Appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence; emphasize need for Customs verification report in refund claimsDiscrepancy in goods - whether after clearance of goods by customs grievance of discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered entertainable - Held that:- there was no discrepancy in the report as alleged by appellant - for the refund to be admissible in respect of short shipped goods, verification report from Customs is necessary the verification report was not there - no complaint was lodged at the time of clearance – decided against the assessee.... ... ... Issues:
1. Entertainability of grievance regarding discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered after clearance by customs.
2. Requirement of verification report from Customs for admissibility of refund claim for short shipped goods.
3. Legal infirmity in Vakalatnama due to lack of consent of earlier Counsel.

Issue 1: Entertainability of grievance regarding discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered after clearance by customs:
The judgment clarifies that the law is clear on how to handle cases of short clearance of goods after taking delivery from customs custody. The decision by the Commissioner emphasized that the imported goods were cleared out of charge, and the alleged short shipment was noticed by the appellants themselves at the site without the presence of Custom Officers. The absence of a verification report from Customs post-clearance led to the rejection of the refund claim. As no discrepancy was reported at the time of clearance from customs custody, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of evidence supporting the alleged discrepancy.

Issue 2: Requirement of verification report from Customs for admissibility of refund claim for short shipped goods:
The judgment highlights the necessity of a verification report from Customs to support refund claims related to short shipped goods. The absence of such a report in the case discussed led to the rejection of the refund claim by the AC. The judgment underscores the importance of official documentation and procedures in substantiating claims for discrepancies in goods received post-customs clearance.

Issue 3: Legal infirmity in Vakalatnama due to lack of consent of earlier Counsel:
The judgment addresses the issue of a legal infirmity in the Vakalatnama submitted by the appellant's counsel. It is noted that the new counsel did not have the consent of the earlier counsel, rendering the Vakalatnama deficient. Citing a previous case, the judgment emphasizes the importance of including the designation or authority of the executants in the Vakalatnama. The court directed the registry to adhere to the mandate of the High Court and scrutinize Vakalatnamas meticulously to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the specific legal aspects concerning the entertainability of grievances post-customs clearance, the necessity of official verification reports for refund claims, and the importance of proper documentation in legal proceedings, as exemplified by the scrutiny of the Vakalatnama in the case at hand. The decision provides a detailed analysis of each issue, emphasizing the adherence to legal procedures and requirements in resolving disputes related to customs clearance and refund claims. Discrepancy in goods - whether after clearance of goods by customs grievance of discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered entertainable - Held that:- there was no discrepancy in the report as alleged by appellant - for the refund to be admissible in respect of short shipped goods, verification report from Customs is necessary the verification report was not there - no complaint was lodged at the time of clearance – decided against the assessee. Johnson Mathey India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi
Customs
2013 (8) TMI 692 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI - AT
Dated:- 12-4-2013
Appeal No.C/783/2008-Cus - -
Customs
Mr. D. N. Panda Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri. P. K. Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT PER: D.N.PANDA The dispute is on narrow compass as to whether after clearance of goods by customs grievance of discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered entertainable. It is explained in the adjudication order that the short supply is a plea after taking delivery of goods from customs custody. Law is very clear as to the dealing of the case of short clearance if any. On examination of the issue ld. Commissioner recorded his decision and reason of decision as under:- I find that in the subject case, the imported goods had been cleared out of charge and the fact of short shipment was detected by the Appellants themselves at site without the presence of Custom Officers. The evidence produced by them is also subsequent to the out of charge. For the refund to be admissible in respect of short shipped goods, verification report from Customs is necessary. Since, the said report is not there, the AC has rightly rejected the refund claim.\ 2. When we do not find the discrepancy alleged by appellant did not arise in the customs custody as no complaint was lodged at the time of clearance, we dismiss the appeal and it is ordered accordingly. 3. Shri Vasudeva, ld. Counsel says that he has been engaged in this case in place of earlier Counsel. But his Vakalatnama does not contain any consent of earlier Counsel so also vakalat suffers from the legal infirmity as observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deepak Khosla vs. UOI reported in 2010 (251) ELT 524 (Del.), as that does not contain the designation or authority of the executants of Vakalatnama. Registry to follow the mandamus of Honble High Court and scrutinize Vakalatnama without fail. Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders