ADC Refund Claim Can't Be Denied Due To Missing Period Details In CA Certificate: CESTAT
ADC Refund Claim Can't Be Denied Due To Missing Period Details In CA Certificate: CESTAT
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that a refund claim for Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) cannot be rejected merely due to the absence of specific period details in the Chartered Accountant's (CA) certificate.
The bench, consisting of M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), noted that while the CA's certificate did not specify the period to determine whether it pertained to the Bills of Entry under this refund claim, this issue could have been easily verified by the department either by contacting the CA or through physical verification. The tribunal emphasized that rejecting a claim based on procedural discrepancies would be unduly harsh.
In this case, the appellant/assessee sought a refund of the 4% ADC paid on the import of galvanized steel coils and strips, as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007, as amended. The appellant submitted the necessary documentation to support their claim, but the proper officer identified certain discrepancies, including the lack of endorsement on the sales invoices indicating that ADC had not been passed on. Consequently, the refund claim was rejected.
The appellant argued that the period in question was 2013–2014, and the refund amount involved was ₹2,28,882. Despite submitting all relevant documents, the adjudicating authority issued a deficiency memo and eventually rejected the claim. The appellant, being a trader and not registered with the Central Excise Authorities, could not issue invoices that would allow for the taking of CENVAT credit. The appellant contended that the purpose of the exemption notification was to prevent imported goods from being subjected to both ADC and VAT, or sales tax, on subsequent sale.
Allowing the appeal, the tribunal held that the appellant had paid SAD at the time of importation and had also paid sales tax or VAT when selling the goods. Therefore, the appellant was rightly entitled to a refund under the notification, subject to the condition of the bar of unjust enrichment. The tribunal stressed that the substantive benefit of an exemption notification should not be denied due to procedural or technical lapses.
