[Order]. - The issue in this appeal by the Revenue is whether the refund claim of S.A.D. (Special Additional Duty in lieu of Sales Tax) paid at the time of import have been rightly refused on the failure of the respondent to file original copy of the bill of entry and the relevant challans.
2. The respondent-assessee an importer, had imported Nickel Cathode under Bill of Entry No. 7545351, dated 31-7-2012. The imported goods were subsequently sold on payment of appropriate VAT/CST and thereafter the respondent filed refund claim for Rs. 5,50,103/-. The respondent could not submit the original copy of bill of entry and the respective challans as they had been lost by him. The respondent, at the time of filing the refund claim on 26-7-2013 had also filed copy of FIR and an indemnity bond in respect of the lost bill of entry and respective challans. The Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order denied the refund claim of Rs. 5,50,103/- as the respondent could not submit the original bill of entry and the relevant challans. The Adjudicating Authority neither issued a deficiency memo nor issued show cause notice, thereby denied any opportunity of hearing. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) took notice of the facts that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the FIR and the indemnity bond filed. Further, the Adjudicating Authority failed to follow the law and procedure adopted by the Customs Department in case of loss of bill of entry and TR-6 Challans. However, the documents on record of the Adjudicating Authority like copy of bill of entry and TR-6 Challan, CA certificate, self-declaration, sale invoices, ledger account, documents evidencing payment of appropriate VAT, etc., were rejected without giving any reason and/or opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel also took notice of the finding recorded by the authority below that he found that the respondent have fulfilled all the required conditions as per the provisions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. read with Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008 read with Circular No. 16/2008-Cus., dated 13-10-2008 and failed to follow the instructions of the Board. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) took notice of the provisions of law that filing of original bill of entry and/or original TR-6 Challan is not a prerequisite for processing of refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007. Accordingly, in view of the Board circulars, he directed the court below to allow the refund subject to verification of the documents on record.
3. Being aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that Para-II of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 16/2008-Cus. provides -
“Wherever refund claims are sanctioned necessary defacement of the original bill of entry may be carried out in order to ensure that in no case refund is entertained on the same grounds for same goods covered under a bill of entry again”.
4. Having considered the grounds of appeal of Revenue and on perusal of the records I hold that filing of original bill of entry and/or TR-6 Challan is not a mandatory or essential document for the processing of refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Accordingly, I direct the Adjudicating Authority to complete the verification process within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not done so far, and to disburse the refund immediately thereafter with interest as per Rules.
5. Thus, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. The respondent assessee is entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(Order was dictated in the open Court)