2024 (3) TMI 603 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - denial on the ground that appellant has not produced documents to establish that the SAD has not been passed on to another - HELD THAT - The appellant has furnished the CA Certificate. The Adjudicating Authority while sanctioning the refund has taken note of this Certificate and allowed the refund in respect of few Bills of Entry. It is not understood why the Adjudicating Authority has requested for a Certificate of cost structure in regard to certain Bills of Entry. The Notification No. 102/2007 or the Circular issued by the Board does not make any requirement for filing a cost structure along with the refund-claim. On perusal of the CA Certificate produced along with the appeal book, it is seen that the said Certificate has categorically stated that the SAD has not been passed on to the customer. In such circumstances, the Department ought not to have rejected the refund-claim in respect of few Bills of Entry only. From the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel as well as on perusal of records, we find that the Department has insisted on submission of cost structure in case of imports made on MRP basis. The refund is sanctionable only when evidence as to VAT payments made on sale of imported goods is produced before the refund sanctioning authority. The direction to produce cost structure of imported goods does not have any legal basis when the appellant has produced the Chartered Accountant s Certificate to the effect that duty burden has not been passed on to the customer/s as specified in the relevant Notification. The CA Certificate establishes that the duty has not been passed on to the customer. The appellant is eligible for refund. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund-claim to the tune of Rs.2,18,490/- and Rs.2,32,950/- is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim for 4% SAD under Notification No. 102/2007; Rejection of refund claim by Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of evidence regarding passing on of SAD to customers.

Summary:
The appellant filed a refund claim for the period April 2009 to May 2009 and August 2009 to September 2009 for 4% SAD under Notification No. 102/2007. The Original Authority rejected part of the claim, stating lack of proof that SAD was not passed on to another. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeals.

Argument by Appellant:
The appellant submitted Chartered Accountant Certificates linking payment of Sales Tax/VAT on imported goods for the refund claimed. Despite producing CA Certificates, the claim was rejected for not providing a cost structure explaining the exclusion of SAD from the goods' RSP value.

Legal Basis for Refund:
The appellant argued that the Notification did not mandate a cost structure certificate, only a CA Certificate. The CA Certificate confirmed non-passing of SAD to customers, accepted for some Bills of Entry. The rejection of the claim for other Bills lacked legal basis, as SAD payment evidence was the key requirement for refund eligibility.

Import Basis and Refund Eligibility:
The appellant imported goods declaring MRP, with refund rejection based on uncertainty of SAD inclusion in MRP. Appellant clarified paying SAD on declared MRP, making inclusion unnecessary. Authorities' observations lacked legal foundation, as SAD payment evidence was the primary consideration for refund approval.

Judgment:
The Tribunal noted the CA Certificate's validity in confirming non-passing of SAD to customers. Requiring a cost structure for MRP-based imports was deemed unjustified, as SAD payment proof sufficed for refund eligibility. The rejection of the refund claim for specific Bills of Entry was overturned, granting relief to the appellant for the disputed amounts.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief as per law, with the impugned order's rejection of the refund claims set aside.