2019 (5) TMI 720 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 - denial of refund on the ground that the invoices produced by him are forged and fabricated and the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was also found to be false certificate - HELD THAT - Merely on finding of discrepancies in the invoices, the original authority has no basis to come to the findings that the invoices were forged and fabricated. Forging of the invoices for claiming the refund is a serious allegation against the appellant which should not have been levelled without any enquiry and investigation. Further the appellant has explained the discrepancies but the same was not considered by both the authorities. Further the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was held as false certificate without any basis. The said certificate was furnished as per the requirement of the Notification which should have been considered by both the authorities in order to decide the claim of the appellant but the same was not done. The case need to be remanded back to the original authority with the direction to consider the correlation sheets filed by the appellants certified by the Chartered Accountant for claiming the refund of SAD - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim rejection based on alleged submission of forged and edited invoices.
- Allegations of false certificate by the Chartered Accountant.
- Appeal challenging the rejection of refund claim.
- Consideration of discrepancies in invoices and certificate validity.
- Requirement for remand and direction to original authority.

Analysis:

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellants imported multifunction print and copying machines and claimed a refund of 4% SAD upon sale of these machines. The Customs Authorities rejected the refund claim, alleging submission of forged and edited invoices. The original authority found discrepancies and rejected the claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Allegations of False Certificate:
The Chartered Accountant's certificate was deemed false by the authorities without sufficient basis. The certificate was provided as per Notification No. 102/2007 Cus. requirements, but it was disregarded in the decision-making process.

Appeal Against Rejection:
The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the impugned order failed to appreciate the facts and evidence presented. They highlighted previous successful appeals related to import issues and emphasized bias from the refund sanctioning authority.

Consideration of Discrepancies and Certificate Validity:
The impugned order was criticized for not adequately considering the explanations provided by the appellant regarding discrepancies in invoices and the validity of the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The lack of proper investigation before alleging forgery was highlighted.

Remand and Direction to Original Authority:
In light of the identified infirmities in the decision-making process, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the original authority. The direction was to reconsider the correlation sheets certified by the Chartered Accountant for the refund of SAD. The original authority was instructed to pass a fresh order within two months, emphasizing adherence to the law in the decision-making process.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the cases for a fresh determination by the original authority.