2018 (11) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - refund rejected on the ground that the amount of refund has not been shown in the receivables in the accounts of the appellant - Held that - As per the N/N. 102/2007 and also the subsequent Circular No.18/2010 dt. 08/07/2010, it is not the requirement at all that the said claim should be shown as receivables in the books of accounts - Board circular has clarified that field formations need not insist on the production of audited balance sheet and Profit Loss Account and the certificate of the CA is sufficient to grant the refund claim. In the present case, the CA certificate was produced but the same was not considered - refund should not be denied merely on technical violations. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on not showing amount in receivables.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner(Appeals) order allowing the Department's appeal and dismissing the appellant's appeal. The appellant, engaged in trading electronic products, filed a refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus against imported materials sold domestically. The Department raised a query regarding the refund claim not being shown in the appellant's books of accounts. The Assistant Commissioner credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing unjust enrichment due to the amount not being shown in receivables. The appellant contended that the Circular No.18/2010 clarified that a CA certificate suffices for refund claims, without the need for audited balance sheets. The appellant cited tribunal decisions and argued that the refund claim rejection based on not showing the amount in receivables was not sustainable in law.

The learned consultant for the appellant argued that the rejection of the refund claim for not showing the amount in receivables was untenable under the law. He referenced Circular No.18/2010, stating that the SAD refund claim need not be shown in books of accounts, as supported by tribunal decisions. The appellant also presented the Purchase Register, demonstrating that the SAD amount was not included in the purchases for the year, challenging the unjust enrichment premise. The learned AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal found that the rejection solely based on the amount not being in receivables was not in line with the law. The Tribunal noted that the Circular and tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position, leading to setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the SAD refund claim due to the amount not being shown in receivables was not sustainable in law. The Circular No.18/2010 clarified that a CA certificate suffices for refund claims, and tribunal decisions supported that refund should not be denied based on technical violations. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, providing consequential relief if necessary.