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>Refund claim remanded for reassessment; adjudicating authority to verify fresh CA certificate and supporting documents before SAD refund decision</h1> <h3>M/s. Kalkaji Enterprises, M/s. Ramsons Merchants Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata.</h3> CESTAT KOLKATA - AT remanded the refund claim for reassessment by the adjudicating authority, finding that on identical facts no ulterior motive in ... Refund of SAD - reliance placed on the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate produced by the appellant - certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was not authentic - HELD THAT:- The identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Skylark Office Machines [2023 (11) TMI 877 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein this Tribunal observed that 'On perusal of records, we find that no ulterior motive of the appellant towards production of the earlier certificate has been proved. They have produced a fresh Chartered Accountant’s Certificate dated 06.10.2023. Therefore, following the ratio of the cited case law, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.' As on the identical facts, this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, observing that no ulterior motive of the appellant towards production of the earlier certificate has been proved and they have produced a fresh Chartered Accountant’s Certificate - the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority with the direction to check the veracity of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and other relevant documents. Appeal disposed off by way of remand. Appellant filed refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007 for SAD paid; refund initially allowed based on a Chartered Accountant's (CA) certificate later found not authentic, leading to recovery and confirmation of demands. Appellant contends production of a CA certificate is not mandatory under the Notification and relied on CBEC Circular No. 06/2008-CUS (28.04.2008) which only directed importers to submit copies; appellant asserts absence of mala fide and has now produced a fresh CA certificate, seeking remand. Tribunal noted an identical precedent (Skylark Office Machines) which observed: 'no ulterior motive of the appellant towards production of the earlier certificate has been proved. They have produced a fresh Chartered Accountant's Certificate dated 06.10.2023. Therefore, following the ratio of the cited case law, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.' Following that precedent, matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to 'check the veracity of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and other relevant documents.' If found in order, allow the refund and set aside the confirmed demand, interest and penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
