Case Law Details
Anand Tradelink P Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.-Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The case of Anand Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs (Ahmedabad) revolves around a refund claim of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods, which were subsequently sold in the domestic market. During the processing of the refund claim, the department raised an objection regarding some invoices, leading the appellant to withdraw the claim of Rs. 1,57,818/-. The remaining claim was processed, and the refund was sanctioned, but the appellant was aggrieved by the rejection of the Rs. 1,57,818/- portion. The case was appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently to the CESTAT Ahmedabad.
The appellant argued that although they had initially waived the claim of Rs. 1,57,818/-, they later found documents that could prove the eligibility of the refund for this amount. The appellant contended that the rejection was based solely on the withdrawal of the claim and should be reconsidered. The revenue, however, maintained that once the claim was waived, it no longer existed for consideration. After careful review, the CESTAT observed that the appellant had gathered new evidence to justify the claim. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh evaluation of the Rs. 1,57,818/- claim, allowing the appellant an opportunity to present the necessary documents. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back for reconsideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claim in respect of 4% SAD paid on the import of the goods which was subsequently sold in the domestic market. During the scrutiny of the claim, the department had raised objection in respect of some invoices which involved the claim of Rs.1,57,818/- on the ground that the description in the sale invoice is not matching with the imported goods on which the appellant have waived/ withdrawn the claim in respect of Rs.1,57,818/- . Accordingly, the refund except Rs.1,57,818/- was sanctioned. The appellant being aggrieved by the sanctioned order filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal was filed which is limited for claim of Rs.1,57,818/-.
2. Shri K J Kinariwala, Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that though, the appellant have waived and withdrawn the claim of Rs.1,57,818/- however, subsequently on the basis of documents, they found that they are eligible for the refund of this amount of Rs.1,57,818/- also. He submits that both the lower authorities have rejected the claim only on the ground that the appellant had waived of the claim. It is his submission that since the order was passed on this waived amount also the order is appealable and appeal was rightly filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter, before this Tribunal. He submits that since now, the appellant is in position to satisfy that the claim of Rs.1,57,818/- is also legally eligible to the appellant, the same may be considered on merits and facts. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dunlop India Ltd vs. Union of India 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (SC).
3. Shri N P Makwana, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned He submits that once the appellant have waived of a particular amount of refund claim and withdrawn the same, the same was not existing before the sanctioning authority, therefore, there is no question of any proceeding on the said amount.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that though, the appellant had waived and withdrawn the claim of Rs.1,57,818/- at the time of processing the claim however, later on they have gathered the documents whereby, they claimed that they can establish that the goods sold for which the refund was claimed are out of imported goods only. In this position though, the appellant had waived the claim but subsequently when they are in position to satisfy the department the correctness of their claim as per the principles of natural justice the appellant should get one opportunity to justify their Accordingly, as regard the claim amount of Rs.1,57,818/- the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider a fresh refund claim only for an amount of Rs.1,57,818/-, in view of the documents produced/ to be produced before the sanctioning authority.
5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
(Pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2024)
Author Bio
