2024 (3) TMI 993 - AT - Customs

Refund application for refund of 4% SAD payment - Non-compliance with the mandatory condition of Notification No.102/2007 - issued a deficiency memo - Whether the Chartered Accountant certificate, is sufficient to meet the requirement of unjust enrichment and compliance of the conditions of Notification? - HELD THAT - In the present case, only objection made by the adjudication authority to reject the refund application is that the Appellant failed to show the due amount of refund as receivable in the books of account and it amounts to non-compliance of the Notification. In impugned order it is further held that the onus of unjust enrichment also not complied. The issue was considered by various authorities and this Tribunal from time to time as stated in ibid paragraphs and it is well settled that once the Appellant produced certificate from concerned Chartered Accountant, it is sufficient to meet the requirement of unjust enrichment and compliance of the conditions of Notification. The Department have no case that the goods were sold without payment of VAT or Sale Tax as applicable. In the absence of any other objection, impugned order rejecting the refund claim is unsustainable. Following the ratio of the decisions in the matter of Customs, Bangalore Vs M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd 2015 (1) TMI 573 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , Chartered Accountant certificate produced by the Appellant is sufficient to allow refund. Appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in the present appeal is regarding refund of 4% SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The key points include compliance with mandatory conditions, unjust enrichment, and the requirement of a certificate from a Chartered Accountant.

Details of the Judgment:
1. The Appellant imported goods and paid 4% SAD, later applying for a refund. The Respondent rejected the refund claim citing non-compliance with the Notification. The Appellate authority upheld the decision based on non-compliance and unjust enrichment.
2. The Appellant argued that as a trader, they did not issue CENVAT invoices and provided a Statutory Auditor's report certifying no additional levy passed on to customers. Various case laws were cited to support the claim.
3. The Appellant referred to Circular No. 6/2008-Cus clarifying the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the requirement of a Chartered Accountant certificate to prove non-passing of duty burden.
4. Circular No. 16/2008-Cus allowed certification by an independent Chartered Accountant to prove non-passing of duty burden.
5. Circular No. 18/2010-Cus eliminated the need for audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for 4% CVD refunds, emphasizing the importance of the Chartered Accountant certificate.
6. Previous Tribunal decisions and High Court rulings were cited to support the Appellant's claim of fulfilling the unjust enrichment aspect with the Chartered Accountant certificate.
7. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the Tribunal's decision on unjust enrichment. Similar views were taken in other cases.
8. The Appellant argued that the production of a Chartered Accountant certificate suffices for refund claims, as per Circular No. 18/2010-Cus and Tribunal decisions.
9. The Authorized Representative reiterated the necessity of complying with the Notification's requirements and the power to reject refund applications.
10. The Tribunal found the Appellant's Chartered Accountant certificate sufficient to meet the unjust enrichment requirement and compliance with the Notification, allowing the appeal.
11. The Appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.

(Order Pronounced in Open court on 19. 03. 2024)