The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that refund of Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) cannot be denied stating invalidity of certificate even after issuance of correlation certificate. The tribunal viewed 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 a correlation certificate, the refund cannot be denied.
M/s. Veneer Mills, the appellant filed a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007, as amended, for a refund of SAD paid by them at the time of import. The refund to the tune of Rs.75,014/- was rejected by the original authority for the reason that there is no one-to-one correlation between the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and the commercial invoice. Against such order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs ( Appeals ) who vide the order impugned herein upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
Shri Loknath appeared and argued for the appellant. The conditions in the notification were adverted to by the consultant to submit that for complying with para 2(e)(ii) of the Notification, it is sufficient if the importer furnishes a Chartered Accountant Certificate along with the correlation details
It was further submitted that the appellant had furnished a correlation certificate attested by the Chartered Accountant. Despite this, the authorities below have held that there is a difference in the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and the commercial invoice. The counsel argued that the description in the Bill of Entry is given in detail for payment of duties at the time of import. The commercial invoices are prepared and issued for the party to whom the goods are sold. On bare perusal of these documents, it can be seen that there is no difference in the goods imported and the goods sold. In the Bills of Entry, the entire details of the goods have been described whereas in the commercial invoices, it is stated as commercial veneer sheets or core veneer sheets.
Shir N. Satyanaranayan appeared and argued for the department. The findings in the impugned order were reiterated. It is submitted that there is much difference in the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and the commercial invoices.
It was found that the authorities below have rejected the refund claim observing that the appellant has not furnished evidence to show one correlation of the goods imported and the goods sold.
A two-member bench comprising Mrs Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) observed 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 a correlation certificate, the department cannot deny the refund stating that the said certificate is not valid. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant is eligible for a refund.
While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
