Appellants win 4% SAD refund appeals as CA certificates deemed sufficient for unjust enrichment proof under Notification 102/2007

CESTAT Bangalore allowed appeals for 4% SAD refund. The adjudication authority rejected refund applications citing non-compliance with Notification No.102/2007 requirements and failure to demonstrate unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant certificates produced by appellants were sufficient to meet unjust enrichment requirements and notification compliance conditions. Following precedent from Karnataka HC in Apple India case, the Tribunal ruled that CA certificates adequately establish refund eligibility, making the rejection orders unsustainable.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue in the present appeal is regarding refund of 4% SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The key points include compliance with mandatory conditions, unjust enrichment, and the requirement of a certificate from a Chartered Accountant.

Details of the Judgment:
1. The Appellant imported goods and paid 4% SAD, later applying for a refund. The Respondent rejected the refund claim citing non-compliance with the Notification. The Appellate authority upheld the decision based on non-compliance and unjust enrichment.
2. The Appellant argued that as a trader, they did not issue CENVAT invoices and provided a Statutory Auditor's report certifying no additional levy passed on to customers. Various case laws were cited to support the claim.
3. The Appellant referred to Circular No. 6/2008-Cus clarifying the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the requirement of a Chartered Accountant certificate to prove non-passing of duty burden.
4. Circular No. 16/2008-Cus allowed certification by an independent Chartered Accountant to prove non-passing of duty burden.
5. Circular No. 18/2010-Cus eliminated the need for audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for 4% CVD refunds, emphasizing the importance of the Chartered Accountant certificate.
6. Previous Tribunal decisions and High Court rulings were cited to support the Appellant's claim of fulfilling the unjust enrichment aspect with the Chartered Accountant certificate.
7. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the Tribunal's decision on unjust enrichment. Similar views were taken in other cases.
8. The Appellant argued that the production of a Chartered Accountant certificate suffices for refund claims, as per Circular No. 18/2010-Cus and Tribunal decisions.
9. The Authorized Representative reiterated the necessity of complying with the Notification's requirements and the power to reject refund applications.
10. The Tribunal found the Appellant's Chartered Accountant certificate sufficient to meet the unjust enrichment requirement and compliance with the Notification, allowing the appeal.
11. The Appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.

(Order Pronounced in Open court on 19. 03. 2024)

---