9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 577 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - Notification No.102 of 2007 Customs - Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - No dispute about the fact that these refund claims have been filed fulfilling the conditions of the said notification and the conditions as prescribed by the above circular. The Notification and circular lay down the manner in which the refund claims are to be examined and allowed. It is provided that a certificate from an independent chartered accountant shall suffice to establish that the burden of SAD has not been passed on and the refund claim shall not be hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. Thus we find that adjudicating authority has while sanctioning the refund have followed the guidelines issued by board in this regard. As the issue is settled in favour of the respondent by various decisions of the Tribunal we do not find any merit in this appeal. However, before closing we would like to point out the decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras V/s Addison Company Ltd. 2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT is not in respect of the case where the refund of SAD has been claimed in terms of the Notification No.102/2007 which provides for the refund subject to fulfillment of this condition. In such cases payment of VAT is the only condition for refund to the dealer who has paid the SAD at the rate of 4% and that burden of the same has not been passed on to the buyer is certified by the independent chartered accountant. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) u/s Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 2. Applicability of unjust enrichment doctrine. 3. Validity of Chartered Accountant's certificate for refund claims. Summary: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) u/s Notification No. 102/2007-Cus: The appellant filed refund claims for SAD paid in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The Original Authority sanctioned the refunds, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue appealed against this decision, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide reasons for not applying the Addison judgment of the Supreme Court. Applicability of Unjust Enrichment Doctrine: The revenue contended that the refund should be denied based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner Of Central Excise, Madras Vs Addison & Co, Ltd., which emphasized that refunds should only be granted to the person who ultimately bears the incidence of duty. The revenue argued that the importer failed to establish that the burden of SAD had not been passed on to the buyer. Validity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate for Refund Claims: The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and CBEC Circular No. 16/2008-Cus allow the use of a Chartered Accountant's certificate to establish that the burden of SAD has not been passed on, thereby satisfying the requirement against unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority followed these guidelines in sanctioning the refunds. The Tribunal referenced several precedents affirming that a Chartered Accountant's certificate is sufficient to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, thus validating the refund claims. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that the issue of unjust enrichment was settled in favor of the respondent by various decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that the Addison judgment did not apply to cases where refunds were claimed under Notification No. 102/2007, which specifically provides for refunds upon payment of VAT and certification by an independent Chartered Accountant. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
