Customs | Refund Cannot Be Rejected Merely For Not Filing Chartered Accountant Certificate In Prescribed Format: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not submitted in a prescribed or revised format. The bench opined that the format prescribed under the public notice is only indicative, and once the assessee has produced documents evidencing payment of VAT/CST, the refund cannot be denied merely due to a technical lapse in the format of the Chartered Accountant certificate. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that the format of the Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only a suggested / indicative format and not a mandatory format prescribed for claiming refund under notification No. 102/2007-Customs. Even the notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 does not prescribe any format for the Chartered Accountant Certificate. In the case at hand, the assessee/appellant filed a refund claim on in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended vide Notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008, for refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs amounting to Rs. 11,80,888/- which was paid by them on import of “Constuction Materials” vide 11 bills of entry. The assessee's refund claim has been rejected by the original adjudicating authority for non-fulfilment of the condition in para 2(e)(iii) of the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, read with Para 2(v), (vi) and (vii) of Circular No. 16/2008 dated 13.10.2008. The assessee approached the original authority in person and submitted the Chartered Accountant Certificate in the old format, upon which the assessee was asked to submit the same in the prescribed format as per paragraph 2(e)(iii) of Notification No. 102/2007. However, before the assessee could produce the Chartered Accountant Certificate in the prescribed format, the original authority passed the order rejecting the refund claim. The adjudicating authority has rejected the claim because the claimant has not submitted VAT challans and Abstract of VAT/CST paid on the sale of the imported goods, and also they have not submitted the CA certificate in proper format as per PN 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011. The lower appellate authority (LAA) rejected the appeal by holding that the assessee failed to make good the deficiency pointed out by the lower adjudicating authority in the Deficiency Memo dated 02.07.2014 issued to the assessee for submission of the said VAT challans, Abstract of VAT/CST paid on the sale of the imported goods and the CA certificate in proper format as per PN 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011. The counsel for the assessee argued that the only finding of the LAA against the assessee is that the Chartered Accountant Certificate has not been submitted in the revised format, which is merely a technical lapse, and the same cannot form the basis for the denial of a substantive benefit. The Tribunal, after reading para 2(e)(iii) of the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007 with para 2(vi) of Circular No. 16/2008 dated 13.10.2008, observed that once the assessee produced copies of documents evidencing payment of VAT / CST (as effective discharge of VAT / CST payment on imported goods), the Chartered Accountant Certificate should have been considered as a document evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax/value added tax. The LAA has not rejected the submission of the assessee that they have produced copies of documents evidencing payment of VAT / CST. Therefore, the assessee should be considered to have fulfilled the condition in para 2(e)(iii) of the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, read with Circular No. 16/2008 dated 13.10.2008, stated the bench. The bench held that rejection of the Chartered Accountant Certificate by the adjudicating authority, as well as the LAA, on the ground that the same is not in proper format as per PN 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011, is not correct. In view of the above, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order in respect of seven bills of entry and upheld the order in respect of the remaining four bills of entry. Case Title: M/s. WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 42318 of 2015 Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: M. Pooja Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Vineet Goyal Click Here To Read/Download Order

Customs | Refund Cannot Be Rejected Merely For Not Filing Chartered Accountant Certificate In Prescribed Format: CESTAT

Mehak Dhiman

Tags