Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 247 - CESTAT CHENNAIRefund claim - Special Additional Duty paid at the time of import of goods under Notification No.102/2007 - Original authorities rejected the refund claim observing that the description of the goods in the bill of entry does not match with the description of goods in the sales invoices - HELD THAT:- The appellant has described the goods as ‘MS Plates’ and ‘HR Sheets’ for the reason that they are known as such in the market on the basis of variation in thickness. I am convinced with the explanation put forward for the variation in the description and is satisfactory. Further, the appellant had produced Chartered Accountant certificate as well as the correlation statements along with the refund claim. In such circumstances the original authority ought not to have denied the refund claim. The Tribunal in the case of Ganesha Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea-Import),[2019 (3) TMI 1949 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to consider a similar issue. The Tribunal held that when the documents established that of the goods imported co-related with the invoices, the refund should not be denied on some minor variation in describing the goods. The Hon’ble jurisdiction of High Court in the case of P.P. Products Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, [2019 (5) TMI 830 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that when the CA certificate is produced the same cannot be brushed aside without proper reason. In the present case the adjudicating authority has not put forward any finding as to disregard the CA certificate. In such circumstances the refund claim ought to be allowed. I hold that the appellant is eligible for refund. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
|