2018 (3) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - whether non-endorsement to the effect that no credit was availed in respect of imported goods on the sales invoices is sufficient ground for rejection of refund? - Held that - the issue has been settled by the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , where it was held that A trader-importer, who paid SAD on the imported goods and who discharged VAT/ST liability on subsequent sale, and who issued commercial invoices without indicating any details of the duty paid, would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus, notwithstanding the fact that he made no endorsement that credit of duty is not admissible on the commercial invoices, subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions stipulated therein - refund to be allowed. Rejection of C.A. certificate being not in the proper format - Held that - appellant should be given another opportunity to produce the C.A certificate with the necessary details, to be verified by the adjudicating authority - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim under Notification No.102/2007-Cus.
2. Grounds for rejection: lack of endorsement on sale invoices regarding credit availed for imported goods & improper format of Chartered Accountant certificate.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on two grounds. Firstly, the absence of an endorsement on sale invoices indicating no credit availed for imported goods, as required by para 2(b) of the notification. The appellant cited precedents like Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. case, which supported their position. The Tribunal, following established precedents, held that rejection on this ground was unjustified, allowing the appeal on this aspect.

2. The second reason for rejection was the Chartered Accountant certificate not being in the proper format. The appellant had submitted the certificate, but it was not considered by the lower authorities, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The respondent argued that the certificate needed verification for compliance with the notification. The Tribunal decided that the appellant should be given another chance to provide a C.A. certificate with the required details for verification by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the matter was remanded for this specific purpose.

3. The Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the issues raised by the appellant regarding the rejection of their refund claim. It highlighted the importance of compliance with notification requirements, especially concerning endorsements on sale invoices and the format of supporting documents like the Chartered Accountant certificate. By allowing the appeal in part and remanding the matter for further verification, the Tribunal ensured fairness and adherence to procedural standards in handling refund claims under the relevant customs notification.