Sanction Order of SAD Refund not delivered to Assesee on Time: CESTAT allows Appeal [Read Order]

In a significant case, the Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal, since the department failed to deliver the sanction order of Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund to the assessee on time.            

M/s. Nitco Limited, the assessee filed a refund claim of SAD in respect of various Bills-of-Entry, as reflected in the table given in the Order-in-Original, which fact is not disputed by either of the parties before this court. The total refund claimed of SAD was Rs.32,92,829/- in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007, as amended. 

It was observed by the original authority that the appellant had submitted supporting documents, including certificates issued by their Chartered Accountant. During adjudication, it emanates from the Order-in-Original dated 09.07.2010 that the adjudicating authority, after going through the refund applications as well as attached documents and sanctioned only a partial refund of Rs.22,05,614/- thereby rejecting the balance amount of Rs.10,87,215/-.

Aggrieved by the non-receipt of the balance refund, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was rejected. The first appellate held that the appellant had received a partial refund on 21.07.2010 itself, the address mentioned for communication is identical and therefore, the allegation as to non-receipt of the Order-in-Original was not acceptable. On this ground alone, the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal. 

It was evident that the sanction was granted as early as 11.03.2010, and the receipt of the refund has also been acknowledged by the assessee in its various letters addressed to the Revenue authorities, including the Commissioner of Customs. Hence, to say that the sanction was ordered as per the order in original is not correct. 

It was evident that the printed Order-in-Original placed in the appeal memorandum does not even have a number nor does it have the date on which the said order was passed and the date on which the same was dispatched.

A two-member bench comprising of Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) found that this is the usual practice by the original authority wherein the Order-in-Original itself contains the printed number of the order as well as the date.

While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT accepted the contention of the assessee since it was evident that the date of sanction was much earlier.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates