TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide the Order-under-challenge has rejected the appeal holding that appellant has not explained the reason and has not convinced the Department for mismatch of description of goods in the Invoice submitted by the appellant with the check-list of Bill of Entry. Alleged mismatch in description of goods - HELD THAT:- It cannot be denied by the Department nor actually has been denied that it is the invoice of January, 2015 only which was got compared with both said Invoices of 2014. In view thereof the initial findings that the re-examination report did not reveal anything about the description of goods vis- -vis Invoice No.FACTU 20150005 are apparently wrong on the face of its record. The said findings of Original Authority have been conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported being the defective and rejected goods by the exporter. Department after observing that the description of the re-imported defective goods as mentioned in the said invoices do not match with the description in the invoice No.FACTU 20150005 dated 30 January, 2015 as issued by Spiridon, Belgium that served the impugned Show Cause Notice upon the appellant proposing the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 1,76,905/- filed on 22.05.2015/14.10.2015 under Section 128 A (3) of Customs Act, 1962. The said proposal was initially confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority, vide initial order bearing No.38/2017 dated 10.03.2017. The appeal thereof was allowed by way of remand vide order No.205/2018 dated 20.07.2018 directing the Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the appellant to produce the evidence falsifying the alleged mismatch vis- -vis the description of the goods re-imported to that of the goods in Invoice No. No.FACTU 20150005 dated 30 January, 2015. Since the verification is also silent about the said Invoice that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, I observe and hold as follows:- There is no denial as far as the above discussed facts are concerned. The only allegation in Show-Cause-Notice dated 31.12.2015 is that the perusal of Invoice No. No.FACTU 20150005 issued by M/s. Spiridon, Belgium and submitted earlier alongwith the check list of Bill of Entry and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voice No.37520 dated 09.08.2014 and 37580 dated 19.08.2014 and also established with the identity of goods as declared in the invoice and packing list of the said shipping bills . 7. No doubt the report is silent mentioning about the Invoice No.FACTU 20150005 but apparently and admittedly, the Invoice with which the Invoices No.37520 and 37580 both dated 19.08.2014 were got compared was the Invoice No. No.FACTU 20150005. As far as the issue of alleged mismatch in description of goods was concerned, it cannot be denied by the Department nor actually has been denied that it is the invoice of January, 2015 only which was got compared with both said Invoices of 2014. In view thereof the initial findings that the re-examination report did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
