2017 (12) TMI 1569 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. as amended - denial on the ground that there was no endorsement on the sale invoices to the extent that no credit has been availed in respect of the imported goods in terms of para 2(b) of the said notification and also on the ground that the Chartered Accountant certificate produced by them is not in proper format - Held that - The issue whether non-endorsement to the effect that no credit was availed in respect of imported goods on the sales invoices is sufficient ground for rejection of refund has been settled by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Chowgule Company Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , where it was held that Condition relating to endorsement on the invoice was merely a procedural one and the purpose and object of such an endorsement could be achieved when the duty element itself was not specified in the invoice - rejection of refund not sustainable. C.A. certificate not in the proper format - Held that - The appellant should be given another opportunity to produce the C.A certificate with the necessary details, to be verified by the adjudicating authority. Only for this limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. as amended based on non-endorsement on sale invoices and improper Chartered Accountant certificate format.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's refund claim was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the rejection was based on the lack of endorsement on the sale invoices indicating that no credit was availed for the imported goods, as required by para 2(b) of the notification. The appellant argued that this issue had already been settled by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and held that the rejection of the refund on this ground was unjustified, allowing the appeal on this count.

2. The second reason for the rejection was the alleged improper format of the Chartered Accountant (C.A.) certificate submitted by the appellant. The appellant contended that the certificate was indeed in the proper format, but this was not considered by the lower authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal decided that the appellant should be given another chance to produce the C.A. certificate with the necessary details for verification by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for this purpose.

3. The Assistant Commissioner (A.R) reiterated the findings in the impugned order and raised concerns about the compliance of the C.A. certificate with the notification requirements. However, the Tribunal's decision focused on the specific issues of non-endorsement on sale invoices and the format of the C.A. certificate, ultimately allowing the appeal in part and remanding the case for further verification of the C.A. certificate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of non-endorsement on sale invoices and the format of the C.A. certificate in the context of a refund claim rejection under a specific customs notification. The Tribunal relied on precedent and legal interpretations to decide on the validity of the rejection reasons and provided a clear direction for the appellant to rectify the C.A. certificate format issue.