ACD Refund Claim Can't Be Rejected For Non-Mentioning Of Period Particulars In CA Certificate: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) refund claim cannot be rejected for mere non-mentioning of period particulars in the CA certificate.

The bench of M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that in the CA's certificate there is a non-mention of the period particulars to determine whether the certificate pertains to the Bills of Entry under this refund claim. The doubt was easily verifiable by the department by writing to the CA or by physical verification. Rejecting a claim due to certain procedural discrepancies would be harsh.

The appellant/assessee filed a refund claim for the amount paid against 4% Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) for the import of galvanised steel coils and strips. The appellant claimed refund in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007, as amended, and submitted the relevant documents for proof of the same. The proper officer, finding certain discrepancies in the claim, including the lack of endorsement regarding the ADC not being made on the sales invoices, rejected the refund claim.

The assessee contended that the period of dispute was 2013–2014 and the amount of refund involved was Rs 2,28,882. All the relevant documents were submitted to the lower authority along with the refund claim. Later, a deficiency memo was issued to the appellant, calling for documents. Subsequently, the order was passed by the adjudicating authority, rejecting the claim. The assessees are only traders who import goods and are not registered with the Central Excise Authorities under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. They cannot issue any consumable invoices on the basis of which credit can be taken. In the absence of such an invoice duly approved by the excise authorities carrying the registration number, no CENVAT credit can be taken. The purpose of the exemption notification is that imported goods should not suffer the special additional duty as well as VAT or sales tax on their sale.

The tribunal, while allowing the appeal, held that the appellant had paid SAD at the time of importation and that they had also paid sales tax or VAT while selling these goods, and therefore, the appellant is rightly entitled to a refund under the notification subject to the bar of enrichment. The substantive benefit of an exemption notification should not be denied on the grounds of procedure or technical infraction.

Counsel For Appellant: J. Mercy

Counsel For Respondent: Harendra Singh Pal

Case Title: M/s. Jumar Trade Links Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports)

Case No.: Customs Appeal No.42425 of 2014

Click Here To Read The Order