2024 (6) TMI 1268 - AT - Customs

Refund of Special Additional Duty paid on import of goods - technical violation - unjust enrichment - refund application was rejected on the ground that the CA certificate has not stated as how the unjust enrichment was not applicable - HELD THAT - It is the admitted fact that appellant had paid 4% SAD at the time of import and the appellant had also paid VAT as applicable while selling the goods. The appellant also complied with the condition No. 2(b) in the N/N. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 where it is stated that the importer, while issuing the invoice for sale of the said goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible. Facts being so, it is an admitted fact that the amount paid by the appellant as 4% SAD is not passed on to the buyers and the said aspect was confirmed by the statutory auditor of the appellant while issuing certificate on 05.06.2012. The issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal relied by the appellant in KORADIA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , MUMBAI 2018 (6) TMI 944 - CESTAT MUMBAI , it is settled that once CA certificate is produced and in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, such certificate is sufficient to grant the refund claim. Refund should not be denied merely on technical violations. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim is not sustainable. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Special Additional Duty paid on import of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. The appellant re-imported goods and paid customs duty along with 4% SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007. Subsequently, upon selling the goods and paying VAT, the appellant sought a refund of the 4% SAD. The initial refund application was rejected due to the absence of a clear statement in the CA certificate regarding unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for the appellant to provide an explanation from their CA. Despite a detailed explanation from the statutory auditor, only a partial refund was granted. The appellant then filed an appeal against this decision.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel emphasized that the refund application was supported by sufficient documents and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, indicating that the SAD amount was not included in the selling price and had not been passed on to customers. The counsel referred to previous Tribunal decisions, such as Koradia Exports (India) Private Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai, to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal's past rulings emphasized the importance of the importer not passing on the SAD burden to buyers. Additionally, the counsel cited the decision in CC, Bangalore Vs. Apple India Private Limited, which highlighted the significance of CA certificates and the procedural requirements related to unjust enrichment.

The appellant's counsel also referenced several other decisions, such as National Steel Agro Industries Limited Vs. CC, Mumbai, to strengthen their argument. On the other hand, the respondent's representative argued that the appellant had not met the unjust enrichment requirement and failed to demonstrate the due amount as receivable in the relevant financial year. However, after considering both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions for the refund claim. The Tribunal highlighted that once a CA certificate is submitted and in the absence of fraud or collusion allegations, the certificate should suffice for granting the refund. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.