Case Law Details
Veneer Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently rendered a significant decision in the case of Veneer Mills versus the Commissioner of Customs concerning the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. The case centered around the rejection of a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007, as amended, on the grounds of purported discrepancies between the descriptions of goods in the Bill of Entry and the commercial invoice.
The appellant, Veneer Mills, had filed a refund claim for SAD paid at the time of import, amounting to Rs. 75,014/-. However, the claim was rejected by the original authority and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the basis of alleged inconsistencies in the descriptions of goods between the Bill of Entry and the commercial invoice.
In the appeal before CESTAT Chennai, the appellant contended that they had complied with the requirements of para 2(e)(ii) of the Notification by furnishing a Chartered Accountant Certificate along with correlation details. It was argued that despite the issuance of a correlation certificate attested by a Chartered Accountant, the authorities erroneously concluded that there was a difference in the descriptions of goods between the two documents.
The appellant emphasized that the detailed description of goods provided in the Bill of Entry was primarily for customs duty assessment purposes, whereas the commercial invoices contained simplified descriptions suitable for sales transactions. They cited the decision in Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai to assert that when a Chartered Accountant Certificate is produced, the department cannot discredit it without sufficient evidence.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
