2024 (5) TMI 1200 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeals - delay of 1158 days - Recovery of Refund already granted - Validity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate - HELD THAT - The facts show that the appellants were deligent in prosecuting the matter, more particularly taking effective steps to bring the wrongdoers within the framework of law. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay though being inordinate has been properly explained. Thus, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Refund - Validity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate - Though the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority held the appellants responsible for producing such a false certificate, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants with knowledge and deliberately produced a fake document. In the absence of any material to the said effect, the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority should not be recorded such a finding. Thus, rending the finding to be perverse. Remand for Fresh Consideration - Though the assessee produced a certificate issued by the chartered certificate yet the adjudicating authority is entitled to verify the aspect as to whether the duty has been passed on or not. Even assuming the certificate issued by the chartered accountant is either defective, false or not acceptable for certain reasons nothing prevents the assessee from producing another certificate from the chartered accountant since it is the adjudicating authority, who will consider not only the certificate issued by the chartered accountant but other records which the assessee may be called upon to produce to examine as to whether refund can be sanctioned. As observed earlier, there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants with certain ulterior motive and with full knowledge produced a false document stating the same to be true. Thus, we are of the view that the matter can be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The appeals are allowed with the above direction.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Authority
2. Validity of the chartered accountant certificate produced by the appellants for obtaining a refund of special additional duty
3. Whether the adjudicating authority can accept a chartered accountant certificate as conclusive evidence for sanctioning a refund

Analysis:

1. The appeals filed by the assessee were challenged due to a significant delay of 1158 days, which is generally not condoned without a valid explanation. However, the appellants diligently pursued the matter after the tribunal's order, seeking rectification initially, which was later realized as improper. Subsequently, criminal complaints were filed against the alleged wrongdoers, leading to a slow progress in the criminal proceedings. The delay was deemed acceptable as the appellants actively pursued legal remedies. The court allowed the applications and condoned the delay in filing the appeals.

2. The chartered accountant certificate produced by the appellants for obtaining a refund of special additional duty was deemed fake, leading to the order for recovery of the sanctioned refund. However, the court found no evidence to suggest that the appellants knowingly produced a false document. The adjudicating authority's finding was considered perverse due to the lack of proof of deliberate intent by the appellants. The court emphasized the need for proper verification by the adjudicating authority before accepting such certificates as conclusive evidence.

3. The court highlighted that the adjudicating authority cannot solely rely on a chartered accountant certificate without further verification. Even if the certificate is found to be defective or false, the assessee can produce additional evidence for consideration. The tribunal's opinion allowed for the submission of fresh chartered accountant certificates if the previous ones were deemed unacceptable. In light of this, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of all documents and records before making a decision.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeals with the direction to remand the matter for a fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, highlighting the importance of proper verification and due diligence in accepting documentary evidence for refund claims.