2015 (10) TMI 191 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD Non-consideration of documents produced Appellant filed refund claim against 4% SAD paid in respect of imported goods Adjudicating authority rejected claim on finding that importer has failed to submit all documents required for processing refund claim Commissioner (A) also upheld order rejecting appeal Held that - no specific document was pointed out while rejecting refund claim Therefore, on basis of mere statement without discussing about any document, rejection of claim was not warranted Despite appellant having submitted all documents before original authority and further clarificatory certificate from C.A. before Commissioner, Commissioner has neither whispered nor given any finding on such vital documents VAT/CST payment, copies of challan evidencing deposit of VAT/CST which gets correlated with sale invoice, it is evidenced that VAT/CST was paid on goods sold by appellant These facts not only establish from basic records but also reinforced by clarificatory certificate issued by Chartered Accountant No deficiency in respect of payment of CST/VAT and that amount being shown as receivable in balance sheet Therefore, appeal allowed with consequential relief Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on documents submission; Failure to correlate documents with balance sheet; Upholding of rejection by Commissioner (Appeals); Submission of required documents by the appellant; VAT payment evidence; Unjust enrichment issue; Consideration of documents by lower authorities.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant filed a refund claim against 4% SAD paid for imported goods but was rejected by the adjudicating authority due to alleged failure to submit all required documents. The authority did not specify the missing document, leading to a vague basis for rejection.

2. Failure to Correlate Documents: The appellant's submission of a C.A. Certified ledger account was found to be inadequate as it did not correlate with the balance sheet and CST payment. This deficiency led to the issuance of a memo and subsequent rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities.

3. Upholding of Rejection: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, emphasizing the appellant's failure to submit original packing list, bill of lading, and ledger account for the specified period. Despite a personal hearing, the appellant's documents were deemed insufficient and not correlating with the balance sheet.

4. Submission of Required Documents: The appellant argued that all necessary documents were submitted, including a clarificatory C.A. certificate establishing correlation between VAT payments, challans, and sales invoices. The appellant's balance sheet reflected the refund amount under 'Loans and Advances,' certified by a Chartered Accountant.

5. VAT Payment Evidence: The Revenue contended that the appellant did not provide a profit and loss account to prove VAT/CST payment for goods sold, thus questioning the eligibility for a refund without conclusive evidence.

6. Unjust Enrichment Issue: The appellant demonstrated through certified documents that the refund amount was reflected in the balance sheet under 'Loans and Advances,' indicating no unjust enrichment. The Chartered Accountant's certification further supported the correlation between VAT/CST payments and sales invoices.

7. Consideration of Documents: The Tribunal found discrepancies in the lower authorities' reasoning, noting the appellant's submission of all necessary documents and clarificatory certificates. The Tribunal concluded that there was no deficiency in VAT/CST payment and that the rejection of the claim by lower authorities was erroneous, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.