2015 (3) TMI 161 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008, dated 01.08.2008 read with Board s Circular No.6/2008-Cus. dated 28.04.2008 and 16/2008-Cus. dated 13.10.2008 - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Shri Ram Impex India (P) Ltd. (2013 (11) TMI 1354 - CESTAT CHENNAI) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue - Authorised Representative for the Revenue disputed the payment of VAT, which was not disclosed in the agreement. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of Chartered Accountant s Certificate that the incidence of duty was borne by the respondent. Revenue has not disputed the authenticity of the Chartered Accountant s Certificate in their appeal. It is noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already directed the lower authority to verify the evidences submitted by the appellant. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim under Customs Tariff Act, 1965
- Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007-Cus.
- Requirement of Chartered Accountant certification
- Dispute over VAT payment disclosure in agreement

Refund Claim under Customs Tariff Act, 1965:
The respondent imported various goods and filed a refund claim for Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1965. The adjudicating authority partially sanctioned the refund, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the appeal, emphasizing the rectification of non-endorsement issues and the absence of provisions for reimbursement of ST/VAT in the agreement. The Commissioner observed no impediment for refund subject to verification of evidence.

Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007-Cus.:
The dispute revolved around Condition No.2(d) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus., which required the importer to pay appropriate sales tax or value-added tax. The Board's Circular clarified that a Chartered Accountant could certify financial records to ensure the duty burden was not passed on. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where the appeal was rejected, highlighting the importance of Chartered Accountant certification.

Requirement of Chartered Accountant Certification:
The Revenue contested the authenticity of the Chartered Accountant's certificate, but the Tribunal upheld its validity based on the Board's Circular. The Tribunal emphasized that the certificate's acceptance by the adjudicating authority could not be disregarded without proper basis or material evidence. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, noting the lack of dispute regarding the certificate's authenticity.

Dispute over VAT Payment Disclosure in Agreement:
The Revenue disputed the non-disclosure of VAT payment in the agreement, while the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Chartered Accountant's Certificate confirming the duty incidence borne by the respondent. As the Revenue did not challenge the certificate's authenticity and the Commissioner directed verification of evidence, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, maintaining the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying evidence submitted by the appellant before making a decision.