SAD refund allowed despite clerical error in documentation: CESTAT

No Comments

The Hon’ble CESTAT of New Delhi allowed refund of 4% SAD in respect of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated September 14, 2007 (“Notification No. 102/2007- Customs”), which was earlier rejected by adjudicating authority on the ground that the Truck number mentioned in VAT receipt did not match with Truck number mentioned on invoice. Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal observe that all other conditions have been complied and this is nothing beyond merely a typographical error.


M/s. Madhusudhan Minerals (P) Ltd (“The Appellant”) has filed two refund claims in respect of 4% SAD paid on goods adjudicated under Notification No. 102/2007- Customs.

Issue Involved

Whether the refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007- Customs was allowable subject to clerical error in VAT receipt?

Appellant’s Contention:

Appellant contended that the refund claim was rejected merely on clerical error in Form VAT 38 receipts as it did not include the Truck numbers but as correctly mentioned in the invoices. Further, added that even the CA certificate had corroborated the mistake to be clerical one, but the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority despite giving submissions.


The Hon’ble CESTAT of New Delhi vide Customs Appeal No. C/53333/2018 [SM] dated February 06, 2019 observed that all the conditions required for the Notification No. 102/2007- Customs, were complied by the assessee but the only issue for rejection of refund was truck number not mentioned in the requisite VAT documents and it was not tallying with the truck number mentioned on the invoice.

Further, observed that the Invoice numbers i.e. 192-194 and 196 was mentioned in the VAT 38 challan. It was also noted that in CA certificate, the Bill of entry number, and also the invoice number as well as the payment date were also mentioned. The CESTAT found after reading these information together that all three documents spoke about such transaction and such details as were mentioned in the invoices. Further added that the difference in Truck number on VAT 38 was nothing beyond merely a typographical error.

Accordingly, CESTAT held that the refund even for the balance amount was liable to be sanctioned which was wrongly been rejected by adjudicating authority.

Citation: [TS-238-CESTAT-2019-CUST]