2024 (3) TMI 762 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - denial on the ground that certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was not authentic - HELD THAT - An identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/S. SKYLARK OFFICE MACHINES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) , KOLKATA 2023 (11) TMI 877 - CESTAT KOLKATA , wherein this Tribunal observed On perusal of records, we find that no ulterior motive of the appellant towards production of the earlier certificate has been proved. They have produced a fresh Chartered Accountant s Certificate dated 06.10.2023. Therefore, following the ratio of the cited case law, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. As on the identical facts, this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, observing that no ulterior motive of the appellant towards production of the earlier certificate has been proved and they have produced a fresh Chartered Accountant s Certificate. Therefore, following the precedent decision on the identical issue, matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority with the direction to check the veracity of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and other relevant documents. If the same are found to be in order, pass a necessary order allowing the refund claim filed by the appellant. If the refund is held as eligible, the present confirmed demand against the appellant along with interest and penalty would get set aside. Appeal disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The case involves a refund claim under Notification No.102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007, where the appellant was allowed a refund of SAD paid based on a Chartered Accountant's Certificate. Subsequently, it was discovered that the certificate was not authentic, leading to recovery proceedings and confirmed demands.

Summary:

Issue 1: Authenticity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate
The appellant submitted refund claims under Notification No.102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007, supported by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate. However, it was later found that the certificate was not authentic, resulting in recovery proceedings and confirmed demands. The appellant argued that the production of the certificate was not mandatory under the notification and cited a CBEC Circular directing importers to submit such certificates. They claimed they were unaware of the certificate's validity due to reliance on a third party. The Tribunal, referring to a previous case, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the new certificate's authenticity and other relevant documents, with the possibility of allowing the refund claim and setting aside the confirmed demands if found eligible.

Decision:
Both appeals were disposed of by remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for further verification based on the fresh Chartered Accountant's Certificate provided by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need to ensure the validity of the certificate and other supporting documents, with the potential outcome of allowing the refund claim and nullifying the confirmed demands if deemed appropriate.