TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und claim for two bills of entry involving the import of "Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coil Grade 430 & Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coil Grade 304 Mill Edge etc.,". The lower authority rejected one of the refund claims amounting to Rs.3,53,213/-, on the ground that description of the imported goods does not match. For instance, in the Bill of Entry and related import invoice the description of goods is mentioned as 'Cold rolled stainless steel coil grade 304 mill edge' whereas in the Sales invoice it is mentioned as 'Cold rolled stainless steel coil grade 304'. Hence Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 was not duly complied with. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim filed by the appellant for an amount of Rs.3,53,213/- for non-fulfilment of the conditions contained in Para 2(e) (i) of the Notification No. 102/2007- Cus dated 14.09.2007, read with the Board's Circular No. 16/2008-Customs. dated 13.10.2008. The Ld. Counsel stated that when the Chartered Accountant has examined the documents relating to the import as well as the sales as accounted by the appellant and issued correlation certificate, the department cannot deny the refund due to minor differences in description and dates of invoice etc, unless the said certificate was found not valid. He referred to the following judgments in his favour; A) M/s. Venner Mills Vs. The Commissioner of Customs B) M/s. Faxtel System ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is mandatory for compliance being a trader who cleared the goods on the strength of commercial invoices.' The judgment went on to examine the genesis and object of the levy and the role of the exemption notification, which is very useful in understanding the issue. The relevant portion of the Tribunals judgment is extracted below; 5.1 It would be useful and appropriate at this juncture to understand the genesis of the levy of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). While moving the proposal for this levy in the Finance Bill, 1998, the Hon'ble Finance Minister of India stated as follows in his Budget Speech: "I am persuaded about a clear disability that our commodity taxation inflicts on the indigenous goods vis-à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation No. 29/1998-Cus., dated 2-6-1998. The said exemption underwent many changes over the years and the present exemption is contained in Notification 102/2007-Cus. wherein the exemption is operationalised through a refund mechanism. Notwithstanding these changes, the object of the levy was to counterbalance the levy of local taxes on domestically produced goods on imported goods so that there is a level playing field between the two. However, when the imported goods are subsequently sold in the domestic market bearing the burden of local taxes, exemption is provided from SAD so as to neutralize the impact of double levy. This object and purpose of the levy and the exemption needs to be kept in mind while interpreting Notification No. 102/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ription of goods in the invoice, and clerical errors in dates do not go to the root of the validity of the refund claim and are curable. The CA's Certificate along with the reconciliation statement has been prescribed in Boards Circular to provide a ledger/ document-based scrutiny of the claim and should ordinarily be relied upon to sanction the claim. If a serious evasion of duty was suspected physical inquiry could have been conducted by revenue with the buyers or in any other manner and the CA's Certificate along with reconciliation statement discredited, while taking action to deny the claims. There would then be proper ground to reject the claim and take any other action deemed necessary. Regular cash inflows are the lifeline of a trad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of no consequence on the sale while selling the product in the local market. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority has not come to a conclusion that the product sold was entirely different. In fact, there was nothing on record to disbelieve the Chartered Accountant's certificate which certified that both products are one and the same. If the adjudicating authority had to disbelieve such certification, then there should have been material to do so. However, the larger question would be whether at all such jurisdiction is vested with the adjudicating authority, when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation against the appellant. 11. In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals-II), the first appell....