2016 (12) TMI 1508 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - certain goods were shown to have been sold prior to the date of payment of SAD - no clarifications could be produced in this regard and the error claimed by respondent as clerical error - Circular No.6/2008-Cus. dated 28.04.2008 - Held that - The respondent has submitted a Certificate from C.A. who certified the financial records of the respondent. In terms of the Circular of CBEC, in an ordinary course the certificate should have been accepted as a proof. However, since a serious discrepancy was found in the invoices total reliance of the certificate is not accepted. We find that the onus of proving that they have paid ST/VAT on the imported goods lies on the respondent. The respondent has sought to discharge the said onus by C.A. certificate as there is a serious discrepancy noticed in the invoice as pointed out by Revenue. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority and the respondents are directed to submit the C.A. certificate along with all documents relied upon by the C.A. in preparing the said certificate - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on clerical error in invoices.
2. Acceptance of Chartered Accountant certificate as proof of payment.
3. Discrepancy in invoices and the requirement of original documents.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a refund claim by the respondent for 4% SAD paid on imports, contested by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, citing a possible clerical error in the invoices due to multiple Bills of Entry on the same date. The Commissioner accepted the respondent's explanation, emphasizing the absence of domestic sales and the matching quantities imported and sold. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal, arguing the lack of clarification from the Excise Department to prove the clerical error.

2. The Tribunal considered Circular No.6/2008-Cus. clarifying the documents required for refund claims. While the respondent submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate certifying payment of service tax/VAT, the Tribunal noted a serious discrepancy in the invoices. Despite the certificate, the Tribunal emphasized the respondent's burden to prove tax payment on imports. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for reevaluation by the original adjudicating authority, directing the respondent to submit all documents relied upon by the Chartered Accountant.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of original documents evidencing tax payment, as specified in the Circular. The acceptance of a Chartered Accountant certificate was subject to the accuracy of the information provided, especially in cases of discrepancies in invoices. The onus remained on the importer to substantiate tax payments, necessitating a thorough examination of all relevant documents by the adjudicating authority. The judgment underscored the significance of compliance with procedural requirements and the need for accurate documentation in refund claims to ensure transparency and accountability in customs matters.