TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Criticizes Refund Claim Rejection, Orders Reassessment</h1> <h3>M/s. Ingram Micro India Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai</h3> The appellate tribunal found in favor of the appellant, criticizing the rejection of the refund claim due to procedural lapses and failure to adequately ... Refund of SAD - rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant has not submitted Chartered Accountant certificate to establish that the burden of 4% Additional Duty has not been passed on to another - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 read with Board’s Circular No.6/2008-Cus. dated 28.04.2008 and 16/2008-Cus. dated 13.10.2008 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the order passed by both the authorities, it is found that they have not cared to peruse the documents submitted by the appellant. The refund claim has been rejected in a cryptic manner. It is to be borne by the authorities below that interest on such delayed refund is paid out of public money and therefore the refund claims have to be processed in proper manner after perusing the documents produced by the claimants. In the present case, though the refund claim is received on 16.06.2009, the adjudicating authority has passed the order only on 21.06.2012. The adjudicating authority ought to have conducted one more personal hearing so as to make sure whether the appellants have furnished necessary documents before rejecting the appeal on such technical grounds. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to process the refund claim on the basis of documents produced by the appellant. The appellant shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing and also for furnishing any documents, if necessary - The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Issues: Refund claim rejection based on lack of Chartered Accountant certificate to prove non-passing of Additional Duty burden and failure to consider documents submitted by the appellant.Analysis:1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant's refund claim was rejected due to the absence of a Chartered Accountant certificate to demonstrate that the burden of 4% Additional Duty had not been transferred to another party. Despite the appellant submitting all supporting documents, including the certificate, the original authority rejected the claim citing lack of this specific document. The appellate tribunal noted that the authorities did not thoroughly review the documents provided by the appellant, leading to a cryptic rejection of the refund claim. The tribunal emphasized the importance of processing refund claims diligently, especially considering the use of public funds for interest payments on delayed refunds.2. Procedural Lapses: The tribunal highlighted the delay in the adjudicating authority's decision-making process, as the refund claim submitted in June 2009 was only addressed in June 2012. The tribunal criticized the lack of a further personal hearing to ensure that all necessary documents were indeed furnished by the appellant before rejecting the claim on technical grounds. Emphasizing the financial implications of such delays and unnecessary litigations on both the claimant and the department, the tribunal stressed the need to avoid such situations in the future.3. Remand and Directions: In light of the procedural irregularities and the failure to consider the appellant's documents adequately, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The authority was instructed to reevaluate the refund claim based on the documents already submitted by the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant was granted the opportunity for a personal hearing and to provide any additional documents deemed necessary for the claim assessment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the original authority for a comprehensive review and processing of the refund claim.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai underscores the procedural lapses, the importance of thorough document review in refund claim assessments, and the directive for a diligent reconsideration of the appellant's claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
