Supertron Electronics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal arose from the rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007, which provides for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import, subject to fulfillment of specified conditions. The appellant, engaged in the business of trading in computer monitors and parts, had imported goods through a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit, namely Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., SIPCOT SEZ, Sriperumbudur, on payment of applicable customs duties including SAD. Upon subsequent sale of the imported goods in the domestic market on payment of VAT/CST, the appellant sought refund of SAD.
The appellant had filed twelve refund claims for the period 2009-2010 amounting to Rs.2,01,60,345/- along with supporting documents including Bills of Entry, sales invoices, VAT payment proof, and Chartered Accountant certificates. The claims were initially rejected primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Tribunal, in an earlier order dated 22.10.2021, directed reconsideration of the claims on merits after holding that the jurisdiction vested with the Customs authorities concerned.
During the reconsideration proceedings, it emerged that the original documents previously submitted by the appellant were no longer traceable with the department. The appellant reconstructed the claims using copies of Bills of Entry, invoices, VAT records, acknowledgments, indemnity bonds, and Chartered Accountant certificates. Despite this, the claims were again rejected on grounds such as non-production of original documents, absence of invoice endorsements stating that SAD credit had not been passed on, alleged lack of correlation between imported and sold goods, and jurisdictional objections.
