9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1004 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - sale of the goods charging VAT - Notification No.102 of 2007 Cus. - Principles of 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 circular No 16/2008-Cus. 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 fulfilment 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. Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Addison judgment of the Supreme Court. 2. Compliance with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Fulfillment of conditions for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. 4. Satisfaction of the principle of unjust enrichment. Summary: 1. Applicability of the Addison Judgment of the Supreme Court: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to explain why the Addison judgment of the Supreme Court was not applicable. The Tribunal noted that the Addison judgment pertains to unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which is similar to the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the Addison judgment was not directly relevant to the refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which has specific conditions for refund. 2. Compliance with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Revenue argued that the refund should be credited to the fund unless the importer proves that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person, as per Section 27(2) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had followed the guidelines issued by the Board, which included the submission of a Chartered Accountant's certificate to establish that the burden of SAD had not been passed on. 3. Fulfillment of Conditions for Refund of SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007: The Tribunal noted that the refund claims were filed in compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and the related CBEC Circulars. The adjudicating authority had verified that the importer paid VAT on the sale of goods and provided the necessary documents, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate, to substantiate the refund claim. 4. Satisfaction of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment: The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial pronouncements affirming that a Chartered Accountant's certificate is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal cited cases such as Apple India Pvt. Ltd., Sauvee Impex Pvt. Ltd., and Equinox Solution Ltd., where similar refund claims were allowed based on the submission of a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority had correctly sanctioned the refunds, and the Revenue's appeals lacked merit. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) that sanctioned the refunds of SAD to the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions for refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus were met, and the principle of unjust enrichment was satisfied through the submission of a Chartered Accountant's certificate.
|
