SAD refund cannot be denied for invoice description mismatch where statutory auditor certificate rebuts unjust enrichment.

For SAD refund claims, a mismatch between the bill of entry description and the sales invoice was not enough to deny refund where the records showed the accessories were sold with the main machine, their value was included in the kit, and there was no contrary evidence that VAT/CST was unpaid. A Chartered Accountant's certificate from the statutory auditor was treated as sufficient evidence to rebut unjust enrichment; an uncorroborated accounting entry in the profit and loss account could not override it. The rejection of the refund was therefore unjustified, and refund with consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim of 4% Special Additional Duty was liable to be rejected on the ground that the description of the imported goods in the bills of entry did not exactly match the commercial sales invoices; (ii) Whether the claim was barred by unjust enrichment despite production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate from the statutory auditor.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim of 4% Special Additional Duty was liable to be rejected on the ground that the description of the imported goods in the bills of entry did not exactly match the commercial sales invoices.

Analysis: The imported goods were drinks dispenser and accessories, and the records showed that the accessories were sold along with the main machine/kit. The commercial invoices did not separately detail each accessory, but the packing list and value of the accessories were included with the machine/kit. The Chartered Accountant's certificate also stated that VAT/CST had been paid on the accessories sold with the main machine. No contrary evidence was brought to show that VAT/CST had not been paid merely because the invoices did not separately mention each accessory.

Conclusion: The objection based on mismatch of description was not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was barred by unjust enrichment despite production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate from the statutory auditor.

Analysis: The Board's circulars clarified that, for SAD refund claims, a certificate from a Chartered Accountant who is also the statutory auditor is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of unjust enrichment, and there is no need to insist on audited balance sheet and profit and loss account when such certificate is produced. The finding that the refund amount was included as expenses in the profit and loss account was unsupported by corroborative evidence and could not by itself displace the statutory auditor's certificate. In similar matters, the Tribunal had accepted such certificates as adequate proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claims was not justified, and the assessee was entitled to the refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For SAD refund claims, where the goods are shown to have been sold with accessories and a Chartered Accountant's certificate from the statutory auditor establishes that the duty incidence was not passed on, refund cannot be denied merely because the sales invoices do not separately describe each accessory or because of an uncorroborated accounting entry.

---