Denial of SAD refund over invoice format and missing CA certificate ruled improper, matter remanded for proper examination

CESTAT Chennai held that denial of SAD refund due to invoices lacking rubber stamps and being non-computer printed, along with non-submission of CA certificate to original authority, was improper. The Tribunal noted that non-declaration of duty in buyer invoices affirms no credit availability per Chowgule Company precedent. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting appeal without examining merits despite CA certificate submission. Matter remanded to Original Authority to consider CA certificate and verify invoices don't indicate SAD payment, with proper hearing opportunity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to non-compliance with conditions under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, specifically regarding the stamping on sales invoices and the submission of a Chartered Accountant's certificate.

Issue 1 - Stamping on Sales Invoices:
The appellant filed a refund claim for 4% Additional Duty of Customs but the department found deficiencies in the sales invoices, specifically the absence of the mandatory rubber stamp as per Condition 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The department concluded that the stamping on the invoices was an afterthought, indicating malafide intent. The appellant argued that the absence of stamping should not lead to rejection of the refund claim, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal held that non-declaration of duty in the invoice itself affirms that no credit would be available, creating a rebuttable presumption that the buyer could not avail the credit of the duty.

Issue 2 - Chartered Accountant's Certificate:
The appellant failed to submit a detailed Chartered Accountant's certificate explaining whether the burden of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) was passed on to the consumer. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim on the grounds of non-submission of this certificate before the original authority. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner should have examined the appeal on merits and issued a proper speaking order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority to consider the Chartered Accountant's certificate and verify the invoices for SAD payment indication, allowing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to advance their claim.

Separate Judgement:
A separate judgement was not delivered by the judges in this case.

---