2013 (11) TMI 1042 - AT - Customs

Import of ceramic tiles from abroad - Refund of SAD - Notification No. 102/2007 - Held that - certificate issued by the VAT authorities gives the correlation between the bills of entry and the VAT paid - this cannot be one of the requirements as per the notification in the absence of specific requirement in the notification. Therefore this ground also cannot be sustained for rejection of refund claim - refund claim was rejected on the ground that original TR-6 challan was not filed. He submits that they had filed a bond with copy of the challan and in my opinion this would be sufficient - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation period, requirement of affixing seal on invoices, unjust enrichment, production of VAT authorities' certificate, and original TR-6 challan submission.

Analysis:
1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation period: The appellants' refund claims were rejected due to filing after the one-year limit from the duty payment date. The consultant argued that the limitation was introduced later and cited a relevant case to support that claims filed post-limitation were valid. The AR concurred with this view, leading to the rejection being deemed unsustainable.

2. Requirement of affixing seal on invoices: The rejection was also based on a mistake in affixing a seal on invoices regarding customs duty credit. The consultant argued that as the appellant was not a registered dealer and SAD was not separately shown, credit could not have been taken. Citing precedents, it was established that the rejection on this ground was unfounded.

3. Unjust enrichment: Although not explicitly mentioned in the order, the counsel provided a CA certificate and details to show that unjust enrichment did not apply. Citing a relevant case, the submission was supported, and the CA certificate was found to be in order, leading to the rejection on this ground being unsustainable.

4. Production of VAT authorities' certificate: The Revenue contended that a certificate correlating domestic sales with bills of entry was not produced. The counsel later submitted the certificate issued by VAT authorities, which was found to be sufficient. Without a specific requirement in the notification, this ground for rejection was deemed unsustainable.

5. Original TR-6 challan submission: In one case, the refund claim was rejected for not filing the original TR-6 challan. The submission of a bond with a copy of the challan was deemed adequate, leading to the rejection on this ground being unsustainable.

In conclusion, based on the detailed analysis and discussions on each ground, it was found that the grounds for rejecting the refund claims were not sustainable. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellants.