Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 3299
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH
Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member
PP Products P Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
Customs Appeal No. 40921 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suja AL
For the Respondents: N. Satyanarayana
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) cannot be denied solely due to generic descriptions in sale invoices or sales through consignment agents if substantive conditions are met and correlation is certified by a Chartered Accountant; Wikipedia is not a valid source for legal classification.
Headnote:(A) Customs Refund - Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Correlation of goods - Use of generic descriptions in sale invoices vs specific grades in Bills of Entry - Refund cannot be denied solely on nomenclature differences if no positive evidence proves different goods were sold. (Para 11, 13)
(B) Evidence - Chartered Accountant's Certificate - Documentary correlation and CA certification merit acceptance unless displaced by cogent evidence. (Para 13, 14)
(C) Customs Refund - Sales through Consignment Agents - Compliance with Circular No. 16/2008-Cus - Refund cannot be denied merely because sales were through agents if VAT/CST payment and correlation are certified. (Para 15, 17)
(D) Evidentiary Value - Wikipedia - Not an authentic source for interpreting taxing statutes or classifying products; cannot displace contemporaneous documentary evidence. (Para 19) (E) Limitation - Appeal filed and subsequently renumbered after recall from call book - Date of original filing is the relevant date for determining limitation. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the refund of SAD was rightly denied due to generic descriptions in invoices and sales through consignment agents, and whether the Department's appeal was barred by limitation.
FINAL ORDER No. 41013 / 2026
Order:-
This appeal is directed against Order-in-AppealNo. C.Cus-II No.175/2017 dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai in the de- novo proceedings. The dispute relates to refund of 4% Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) amounting to Rs.5,02,579/- claimed under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated14.09.2007, as amended.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant, a trader in plastic granules, filed a refund claim dated 18.11.2009 for four Bills of Entry covering imports made in March 2009. The original authority, after examining the relevant documents, sanctioned refund of Rs.5,02,579/- vide Order-in-Original No. 11318/2010 dated 10.03.2010. The Department’s appeal was initially rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), but this Tribunal remanded the matter vide Final Order No.42055/2016 dated 28.10.2016 for de novo consideration. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund sanction and directed recovery, principally on the grounds of mismatch between the descriptions in the sale invoices and Bills of Entry and sales through consignment agents. Aggrieved by the said order, theappellant is before the Tribunal.
3.1 The Ld. Advocate Ms. Suja AL for the appellant, submitted that the original authority had examined the relevant documents and had specifically recorded satisfaction regarding payment of SAD, the sale of the imported goods, payment of CST/VAT and correlation certified by the Chartered Accountant. The subsequent rejection was founded essentially on the use of the generic expression “plastic granules” in the sale invoices instead of reproducing the particular grade appearing in the Bills of Entry. It was submitted that HDPE, LDPE and LLDPE are different grades/types falling within the general description of plastic granules and that the generic description in the sale invoices did not establish that different goods had been sold. The appellant relied particularly upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in P.P. Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs , 2019 (367) E.L.T. 707 (Mad.), as well as Kamadhenu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai, and the other decisions in the writtensubmissions/Appeal.
3.2 It was further submitted that the appellant had produced the statutory Chartered Accountant’s certificate and reconciliation statement correlating the imported goods, subsequent sales and VAT/CST payments. In respect of sales through consignment agents, the appellant submitted that the relevant VAT/CST payments and their correlation with the imported goods were certified by the Chartered Accountant in accordance with CBEC Circular No.16/2008-Cus. dated 13.10.2008. The appellant also challenged the Department’s plea regarding limitation, contending that the appeal had been numbered in 2012 only because the original appeal filed in 2010 had been placed in the call book and subsequentlyrecalled.
4. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayana for the Revenue, supported the impugned order and submitted that the conditions of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. required clear correlation between the imported goods and the goods subsequently sold. He submitted that while the Bills of Entry mentioned specific grades such as HDPE, HDPI, HDPEHD and LDPE PETLIN, the sale invoices merely described the goods as “plastic granules”. He further relied upon the sales through consignment agents and contended that the arrangement was not adequately established. The Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore rightly held that the conditions of the Notification were not satisfactorily fulfilled. The Revenue also submitted that its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within the prescribed period and that its subsequent numbering in 2012resulted from recall of the appeal from the call book.
5. I have carefully considered the records, the rival submissions, the Order-in-Original, the impugned Order-
