9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund applicant should produce a certificate from the statutory auditor/ Chartered Accountant who certifies the importer s annual financial accounts under the Companies Act or any statute, explaining how the burden of 4% CVD has not been passed on by the importer and to fulfill the requirement of unjust enrichment. In the absence of a challenge to the said certificate by revenue it would not be possible to discard the same and reject the refund. Hence the rejection of the refund claim merely on grounds of the mismatch of description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and invoice, without challenging the certificate, is not sustainable, so long as the CA s certificate shows that the goods mentioned in the BE and commercial invoice as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt documents. The appellant submitted the importer s copy of the Bill of Entry in original and e-receipt as proof that the necessary duties including the 4% Additional Duty of Customs were paid and that the goods were cleared for home consumption. They have also submitted the sales invoices and VAT / CST paid challans / VAT / CST returns as proof that the goods imported under the said Bill of Entry were sold and that necessary VAT / CST were paid on such sale. The appellant also produced a certificate from their Chartered Accountant as required under Circular dated 28.4.2008. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund-AIR), Chennai rejected the above refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the identity of the imported good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the product as PB-100-e and PB-100 respectively. The name PB stands for Precision Biometric and hence, the appellant has required the foreign supplier to print the stickers as PB-100-e and PB-100 and the same has also been supplied along with the imported product, which has been taken cognizance of under para 4 of the impugned order in original itself. They have filed necessary Chartered Accountant's Certificate as required under CBEC Circular No.06/2008 dated 28.4.2008. Para 3 of the said certificate clearly certifies for the purpose of Para 2(d) of the notification 102/2007 that the goods imported vide the impugned bill of entry has been sold vide the sales invoices furnished by the appellant and mentioned in the correlation statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible to discard the same and reject the refund. Hence the rejection of the refund claim merely on grounds of the mismatch of description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and invoice, without challenging the certificate, is not sustainable, so long as the CA s certificate shows that the goods mentioned in the BE and commercial invoice as per the correlation statement are one and the same thing. 6. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Jhonson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in a similar situation held as follows; 10. The procedure contemplated for seeking exemption/refund of the Additional Duty of Customs is under Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 read with Circular No. 6/2008, dated 28-4-2008. If that be so, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
