Importer wins refund of 4% Special Additional Duty after initial rejection over CA certificate deficiency

CESTAT Bangalore allowed appellant's appeal for refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. The refund was initially rejected due to alleged deficiency in CA certificate regarding unjust enrichment. However, CESTAT held that appellant had paid both SAD and VAT, complied with notification conditions, and statutory auditor confirmed SAD amount was not passed to buyers. Following precedent in Koradia Exports case, CESTAT ruled that CA certificate was sufficient absent fraud allegations, and refund should not be denied for technical violations. The rejection order was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of Special Additional Duty paid on import of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. The appellant re-imported goods and paid customs duty along with 4% SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007. Subsequently, upon selling the goods and paying VAT, the appellant sought a refund of the 4% SAD. The initial refund application was rejected due to the absence of a clear statement in the CA certificate regarding unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for the appellant to provide an explanation from their CA. Despite a detailed explanation from the statutory auditor, only a partial refund was granted. The appellant then filed an appeal against this decision.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel emphasized that the refund application was supported by sufficient documents and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, indicating that the SAD amount was not included in the selling price and had not been passed on to customers. The counsel referred to previous Tribunal decisions, such as Koradia Exports (India) Private Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai, to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal's past rulings emphasized the importance of the importer not passing on the SAD burden to buyers. Additionally, the counsel cited the decision in CC, Bangalore Vs. Apple India Private Limited, which highlighted the significance of CA certificates and the procedural requirements related to unjust enrichment.

The appellant's counsel also referenced several other decisions, such as National Steel Agro Industries Limited Vs. CC, Mumbai, to strengthen their argument. On the other hand, the respondent's representative argued that the appellant had not met the unjust enrichment requirement and failed to demonstrate the due amount as receivable in the relevant financial year. However, after considering both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions for the refund claim. The Tribunal highlighted that once a CA certificate is submitted and in the absence of fraud or collusion allegations, the certificate should suffice for granting the refund. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

---