Customs refund evidence: Chartered Accountant certification can defeat a VAT-based denial where authenticity is unchallenged.

Refund of additional duty of customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied merely on an alleged VAT compliance defect where the importer produces a Chartered Accountant's certificate and supporting evidence showing that the incidence of duty was not passed on. Condition 2(d) requires payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax on sale of the goods, but the Board's circular recognises certification of financial records under the Companies Act, the relevant State tax law, or the Income-tax Act as proof. In the absence of any challenge to the certificate's authenticity or material displacing it, the omission of express VAT terms in invoices or the agreement is not enough to reject the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of additional duty of customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could be denied for alleged non-fulfilment of the condition relating to incidence of sales tax or value added tax, despite production of Chartered Accountant's certificate and supporting evidence.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined in the light of Condition No. 2(d) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., which requires that the importer pay appropriate sales tax or value added tax on sale of the goods. The Board's Circular No. 16/2008-Cus. clarified that a Chartered Accountant may certify the claimant's financial records under the Companies Act, 1956 or the relevant State tax law or the Income-tax Act, 1961 to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The claim was supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and the appellate authority had also directed verification of the evidence. In the absence of any challenge to the authenticity of the certificate or any material to displace it, the refund could not be denied merely because the sale invoices or agreement did not expressly spell out VAT terms.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected on the alleged VAT-related deficiency, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---