2014 (12) TMI 983 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of SAD - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - failure to show that burden of duty has not been passed on Held that - appellant produced necessary C.A. certificate along with cost sheet as required under Circular No. 16/2008-Cus., dated 13-10-2008. The appellant has also specifically written on the invoices under which the goods were sold, that the credit of additional duty of customs is not available. The C.A. certificate specifically shows that the amount of refund is shown in the account books as amount due as a refund of additional customs duty Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim rejection based on passing on the burden of duty.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the refund claim rejection in light of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority credited the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, alleging that the burden of duty had been passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellants to appeal against the impugned orders.

The crux of the matter lay in the appellants' compliance with the conditions specified in the Notification. The appellants imported teak round logs, paid the necessary duties, and later sold the goods to various buyers after paying VAT. They then filed a refund claim, fulfilling the requirements outlined in the Notification. However, the adjudicating authority insisted that the burden of duty had been transferred, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

The appellant argued that they had adhered to all conditions stipulated in the Notification, including explicitly stating on the invoices that no credit of additional duty of customs was available. Moreover, they presented a Chartered Accountant certificate, as mandated by Circular No. 16/2008-Cus., dated 13-10-2008, to demonstrate that the duty burden had not been passed on. The appellant's submission included a cost sheet and relevant documentation supporting their claim for a refund of the additional customs duty.

In contrast, the Revenue supported the lower authority's findings, emphasizing the appellants' failure to prove that the duty burden had not been shifted. However, the appellant's meticulous compliance with the Notification's requirements, coupled with the CA certificate and invoice disclosures, indicated a different narrative.

The Tribunal scrutinized the provisions of Notification 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007, which outlined the conditions for granting a refund of additional customs duty. Notably, the appellant's actions aligned with the prerequisites specified in the Notification, thereby warranting a favorable decision. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's efforts in providing the necessary documentation, including the CA certificate and invoice details, to substantiate their claim.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions, overturning the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. The comprehensive documentation presented by the appellant, in line with the Notification's requirements, played a pivotal role in the Tribunal's decision to set aside the refund claim rejection based on the alleged passing on of the duty burden.