TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner (Appeals), but this Tribunal remanded the matter vide Final Order No.42055/2016 dated 28.10.2016 for de novo consideration. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund sanction and directed recovery, principally on the grounds of mismatch between the descriptions in the sale invoices and Bills of Entry and sales through consignment agents. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate Ms. Suja AL for the appellant, submitted that the original authority had examined the relevant documents and had specifically recorded satisfaction regarding payment of SAD, the sale of the imported goods, payment of CST/VAT and correlation certified by the Chartered Accountant. The subsequent rejection was founded essentially on the use of the generic expression "plastic granules" in the sale invoices instead of reproducing the particular grade appearing in the Bills of Entry. It was submitted that HDPE, LDPE and LLDPE are different grades/types falling within the general description of plastic granules and that the generic description in the sale invoices did not establish that different goods had been sold. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2007-Cus. for refund of Rs.5,02,579/-, notwithstanding the generic description of the goods in the sale invoices and the sales effected through consignment agents? 6. I now proceed to examine the above issues. Issue No. (i): Limitation: (i) Whether the Department's appeal against the Order-in-Original was barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable? 7. The appellant contended that the Order-in-Original was received in the Review Cell on 12.03.2010 whereas the appeal was numbered in 2012 and therefore appeared to be barred by limitation. The impugned order, however, records that the jurisdictional Commissioner passed the review order on 11.06.2010 and the Department filed the appeal on 23.06.2010. It further records that the appeal was originally numbered in 2010 and was subsequently placed in the call book and, upon recall in 2012, was assigned a fresh number. On the material available before me, therefore, the relevant date for determining limitation is the date of the original filing and not the date on which the appeal was renumbered after recall from the call book. 8. I therefore do not find sufficient basis to hold that the Department's original appeal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refund of SAD on imported HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE granules, where the grades appearing in the Bills of Entry were not reproduced in the subsequent sale invoices. The Hon'ble High Court held that the refund could not be rejected merely on that ground when the adjudicating authority had not found that the goods sold were different from the imported goods and there was no material to disbelieve the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Court also noted that the substantive conditions of the notification had not been disputed. 13. The ratio is directly applicable to the present case. Here also, the Revenue has not produced independent evidence to establish that the goods sold were different from the goods imported. The objection is founded principally on differences in nomenclature, grade or technical description in the sale invoices. Such differences, in the absence of contrary evidence disproving the correlation between the imported and sold goods, cannot by themselves defeat the refund claim. The documentary correlation and Chartered Accountant's certification therefore merit acceptance unless displaced by cogent evidence, which is absent in the present case. 14. The appellant also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant documents and was satisfied regarding the sale of the imported goods and payment of VAT/CST. In the absence of contrary evidence sufficient to displace those findings, I find no justification to deny the refund merely because the sales were effected through consignment agents. 18. The Ld. Counsel further relied upon Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J350 (S.C.), and submitted that the benefit of a notification has to be determined with reference to its express conditions and cannot be denied by importing requirements not contained therein. It was submitted that Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. did not require the sale invoices to reproduce verbatim every grade or specification mentioned in the Bills of Entry. The appellant contended that the substantive requirements of the notification stood satisfied, as the imported goods were subsequently sold and the applicable VAT/CST was paid, as recorded by the original authority. 19. The appellant also relied upon Punjab Con Cast Steel Ltd. v. Collector, 1999 (107) E.L.T. 574 (Tri.), in support of the proposition that the actual specifications and contemporaneous documents are relevant in determining the identity a....