Cestat allowed appeals where importer was eligible for Special Additional Duty refunds. Court held minor description variations between Bill of Entry and invoices were immaterial and refund claims filed under Notification 102/2007 were not barred by limitation.
Impugned orders set aside; appeals allowed with consequential reliefs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Customs Appeal No. 41252 of 2015
(Arising out of OIA C.Cus.II No. 163/2015 dated 13.02.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai600 001)
Customs Appeal No. 41253 of 2015
(Arising out of OIA C.Cus.II No. 300/2015 dated 30.03.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai600 001)
Customs Appeal No. 41254 of 2015
(Arising out of OIA C.Cus.II No. 278/2015 dated 25.03.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai600 001)
M/s. AGS Transact Technologies Pvt …. Appellant C-9A, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry – 605 009.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs …Respondent
Chennai (Port – Export), Custom House,
60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
APPEARANCE :
Ms. V. Pramila Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant Ms. O.M. Reena, Authorised Representative for the Respondent
CORAM :
HON’BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI.C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER Nos.41176-41178/2024
DATE OF HEARING: 04.09.2024 DATE OF DECISION: 04.09.2024
Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi. C.S
The issues involved in all these appeals being the same, they
are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2
3
| Sl.N o |
Appeal No. | Description in B/E |
Description in Sales Invoices |
Refund Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | C/41252/2015 | “Probe 12 non 3rd PTY SS ATEX 0.2 GPH W/WA-C/W2 MAG FLOAT KIT FOR DIESEL W/5 CABLE; Probe 9.0 non 3rdPTY SS ATEX 0.2 GPH W/WA- C/W2 MAG FLOAT KIT FOR DIESEL W/5 CABLE |
Auto Tank Gauging (ATG) Probe complete with product level, Console for auto tank gauging systems & uninterrupted power supply (UPS) for ATG. |
11,92,307/- |
| 2. | C/41253/2015 | “Probe 2.6M NON 3rdPTY SS ATEX 0.2 GPH W/WA- C/W2 MAG FLOAT KIT FOR DIESEL W/5 CABLE of various Specifications” |
Auto Tank Gauging Probe |
8,45223/- |
It is pointed out by the Learned Counsel that these goods were sold to Indian Oil Corporation and the goods described in the Bill of Entry and the sales invoices are one and the same. There is no violation of condition in Rule 2 (e) (ii). The appellant has also furnished a chartered accountant certificate which would establish that the goods imported have been sold by the appellant as per the sales invoices. The decision in the case of Johnson Lifts Pvt Ltd. Vs ACC (Refunds), Chennai - 2021 (2) TMI 401 Madras High Court and the decision in the case of Precision Informatics
4
M Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai 2024 (8) TMI 483 Cestat Chennai was relied.
5
taken the view of mismatch only for the reason that there is slight variation in the description which is not material for denying the refund. The very same issue was considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of Johnson Lifts Pvt Limited (supra). On similar set of facts, the Hon’ble High Court held that the refund claim cannot be denied. Following the said decision and after looking into the records, we are of the view that the rejection of refund claim is not legal and proper. The appellant is eligible for refund. Ordered accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)
sd/- sd/- (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (SULEKHA BEEVI. C.S) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
psd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of refund claim due to mismatch in description between Bill of Entry and sales invoices under Notification 102/2007 was legal and proper.
Whether the one-year limitation period for filing refund claims applies to claims under Notification 102/2007.
Whether appellants are eligible for refund of Special Additional Duty despite departmental rejections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Johnson Lifts Pvt Ltd. Vs ACC (Refunds)Relied on¶10
Johnson Lifts Pvt Ltd. Vs ACC (Refunds), Chennai - 2021 (2) TMI 401 Madras High Court
Precision Informatics M Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Air)Relied on¶5
Precision Informatics M Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai 2024 (8) TMI 483 Cestat Chennai · Who else cites this
Sony India Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CustomsRelied on¶5
Sony India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014(304) ELT 660 (D)
Johnson Lifts Pvt Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)Relied on¶5
Johnson Lifts Pvt Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai 2021(2) TMI 401 Madras High Court
M/s. Viyasi Manufacturing Company LimitedRelied on¶9
M/s. Viyasi Manufacturing Company Limited
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. AGS Transact Technologies Pvt Ltd
The Commissioner of Customs
Sulekha Beevi. C. S.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a customs matter before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
