9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 944 - AT - CustomsSAD Refund - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007 - rejection of refund on the ground that in the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.2008 the importer have not made any provision for the refund of 4% additional duty of customs as receivable - Held that - The main requirement is that the importer should not have charged SAD amount to their buyers which has not been disputed by the Appellate Authority. Further in Balance sheet for the year 2008 09, the said amount is appearing as Refund received from Government which is also not disputed - there is no reason to deny refund of 4% SAD to the Appellant as the requirement of the conditions for allowing refund stands complied with - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on Balance Sheet entries for 4% SAD; Requirement of certificate from statutory Auditor/C.A.; Justification for shifting SAD amount to receivable account; Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 06/2008-Cus; Compliance with conditions for refund eligibility; Unjust enrichment concern; Dispute over charging SAD amount to buyers. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) based on entries in the Balance Sheet. The appellant imported goods during 2007-08 and claimed a refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The refund was denied as the importer did not make a provision for the refund in the Balance Sheet ending 31.03.2008 and failed to provide a certificate from the statutory Auditor/C.A. confirming non-passage of SAD to buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the SAD amount was part of the purchase cost until it was shifted to the receivable account after sales. The appellant argued that uncertainty about refund availability led to the delayed entry in the Balance Sheet and highlighted the entry made post CBEC Circular No. 06/2008-Cus, crediting the purchase account and debiting the "refund receipt from government account" in April 2008, not reflected in the 31.03.2008 Balance Sheet. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appellant's accounting practice involved initially debiting the SAD amount in the purchase account and then crediting the "Refund Received from the Government Account" in the subsequent year upon receiving the refund. This practice, supported by a certificate from the statutory Chartered Accountant, demonstrated compliance and non-unjust enrichment. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer did not pass on the SAD amount to buyers, a crucial condition for refund eligibility, which was undisputed. The Balance Sheet for 2008-09 showed the amount as "Refund received from Government," further validating the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting the refund with consequential relief. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of proper accounting treatment, compliance with refund conditions, and unjust enrichment concerns, ultimately allowing the appeal and affirming the appellant's eligibility for the refund of 4% SAD.
|
