9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods in the sales invoices. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal. 2. The Ld. Counsel Shri. S. Ethunandan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant had furnished all the documents along with the refund claim which has been recorded by the adjudicating authority in para 2 of the Order-in-Original. The appellant had produced Chartered Accountant certificate also wherein it has been stated that the goods in the sales invoice co-relate with the documents relating to the import of goods. In spite of furnishing these documents the original authority has rejected the refund claim observing that the description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven in the bill of entry is on the basis of classification of the goods for payment of duty. 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), Chennai 2019 (369) ELT 1402 (Tribunal Chennai) had occasion to consider a sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no evidence to show that the certificate does not correlate with accounts of appellant. 6. After appreciating the facts and following the decision cited supra, I am of the view that the reasons for rejection of refund are unjustified. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. 6. The Hon'ble jurisdiction of High Court in the case of P.P. Products Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2019 (367) ELT 707 (Madras) 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 allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
