2017 (12) TMI 1828 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - rejection of refund on the ground that there is discrepancy in the description between the goods imported and subsequent sale of goods in India - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. as amended - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra and it has been settled in a number of Tribunal decisions that minor differences in description of goods and sales invoices cannot disentitle the importer from availing benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. Reliance placed in the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA EXPORT) CHENNAI VERSUS SHRI RAM IMPEX INDIA (P) LTD. 2013 (11) TMI 1354 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that There is no condition in the Notification that the Bill of Entry number should be mentioned in the sale invoice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Rejection of refund of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. due to discrepancy in the description of goods imported and sold in India.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the rejection of a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The original authority denied the refund citing a mismatch in the description of goods between the import documents and sales invoices. Specifically, discrepancies were noted in the description of products like CS-500e Livescan Fingerprint Device and CIS 202 Cogent Iris Scanner 202. The appellant's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted that all necessary documents supporting the refund claim were submitted to the original authority. These documents included original importer's copies of Bills of Entry, TR-6 challans for duty payment, import and sales invoices, VAT/CST returns, self-declaration, Chartered Accountant's Certificate, and a Correlation Certificate attested by a Chartered Accountant. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions had established that minor discrepancies in goods' descriptions on invoices do not bar the importer from availing benefits under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. Reference was made to the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea-Export) Chennai Vs Shri Ram Impex India (P) Ltd. - 2014 (300) ELT 126 (Tri.-Chennai) to support this argument.

The Assistant Commissioner (AR) supported the impugned orders during the hearing. However, upon review of the facts, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. It was acknowledged that the issue had been settled in previous Tribunal decisions, including the case cited by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief as per the law. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the Tribunal members, Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Member - Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar (Member - Technical).