Tribunal grants refund of 4% duty on imports, citing compliance with Notification No.102/2007-Cus

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in the case concerning the refund of 4% additional duty on imported goods under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with the notification by submitting all necessary documents, including a Chartered Accountant certificate confirming VAT payment. Despite the lower authorities' refusal to accept the certificate, the Tribunal relied on precedents and circulars recognizing the sufficiency of such certificates to prove unjust enrichment. Emphasizing adherence to specified conditions for refunds, the Tribunal set aside the original decision, granting relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of 4% additional duty on imported goods under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dt. 14/09/2007.

Analysis:
The appellant imported polished marble slabs and filed a refund application for 4% additional duty paid on the goods. The original authority rejected the refund application, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant contended that all necessary documents were submitted as per Notification No.102/2007, including Chartered Accountant certified VAT challans, and argued that the findings in the Order-in-Original supported their claim. The appellant cited various judicial precedents to support their argument that the Chartered Accountant certificate is sufficient to prove unjust enrichment. The learned counsel emphasized that the refund claim should have been granted based on compliance with the relevant notifications and circulars issued by the Board.

The learned AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed complied with Notification No.102/2007 by submitting all required documents, including a certificate from a Chartered Accountant confirming VAT payment. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not accept the Chartered Accountant certificate, despite precedents indicating its validity. Referring to the Gujarat Boron Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal highlighted that the circular issued by the Board acknowledged the sufficiency of the Chartered Accountant certificate in demonstrating that the burden of duty had not been passed on. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the Circular No.6/2008-Customs, which clarified the role of Chartered Accountants in certifying unjust enrichment.

In considering the appellant's compliance with the notifications and circulars, the Tribunal applied legal principles from the Shanti Enterprises case, emphasizing that changing the goods' description on domestic invoices should not be a basis for denying a refund entitled to the appellant. The Tribunal reiterated that introducing extraneous conditions not specified in notifications is impermissible, and compliance with stated conditions should suffice for claiming refunds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---