Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1184 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 Customs dated 14.09.2007 - only ground of rejection is that the Truck No. mentioned in the requisite documents is not tallying with the truck No. mentioned on the invoice/ receipt. The plea of the appellant for same to be a clerical error has not been considered by the adjudicating authority - Held that:- Perusal of Form VAT 38 shows that the invoice Nos. i.e. 192-194 and 196 are mentioned in the VAT 38 challan. The said mention is sufficient to hold that the VAT Challans are with respect to such Truck Nos. as are mentioned in the invoice bearing aforesaid Nos. Now, perusing the CA Certificate it is clear that not only the Bill of entry No. but the invoice No. as well as the date of the payments made are mentioned. Thus three of these documents when read together are sufficient to prove that three of these documents speak about such transaction and such details as are mentioned in the invoices 192-194 and 196. Once, this is the fact the difference in the truck No. on VAT 38 is nothing beyond merely a typographical error. The adjudicating authority has committed an error while not looking into the CA Certificate as the corroboration to the invoices as well as the VAT 38 challans. In fact, no other document was required. The finding that, “the documents evidencing the same are not produced is therefore opined to be an outcome of mere presumption on part of the Department - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|