Refund of SAD allowed where missing invoice endorsement was human error and tax was discharged on subsequent sale

CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of the refund claim for SAD. The Tribunal found that absence of the specific endorsement on some sales invoices, shown to be a human error and not proven mala fide, did not defeat entitlement where VAT/ST was discharged on subsequent sale. Following the Larger Bench view, traders who paid SAD and discharged tax are eligible for refund even if invoices lack the endorsement, so refusal and rejection of the CA certificate were not proper.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the sales invoices submitted contained the endorsement required by para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs.

2. Whether non-compliance with the endorsement requirement in para 2(b) precludes entitlement to refund under the notification when other conditions are satisfied.

3. Whether a Chartered Accountant's certificate, in the prescribed format, is sufficient to adjudicate and negate the bar of unjust enrichment for purposes of the refund claim.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Whether the sales invoices submitted contained the endorsement required by para 2(b)

Legal framework: Para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs requires that the importer, while issuing the invoice for sale of the goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that no credit of the additional duty of customs (SAD) shall be admissible.

Precedent treatment: The adjudicating authority carried out random verification at a buyer's end and found one invoice lacking the endorsement; the lower appellate authority treated that verification as sufficient proof of non-compliance. The Tribunal referenced prior Tribunal and Larger Bench decisions addressing similar factual matrices.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had verified one invoice at a buyer's end and the appellant admitted the absence of the stamp on that invoice due to human error. The Tribunal observed that a random verification of one invoice, by itself, does not permit the conclusive inference that none of the invoices were stamped in accordance with para 2(b). Thus, while the verified invoice lacked the endorsement, such limited verification cannot alone establish wholesale non-compliance across all invoices.

Ratio vs. Obiter: This finding is applied as a factual limitation on the probative value of isolated invoice verification; it is ratio in the context of the appeal's facts (establishing insufficiency of a single random verification to deny claim wholesale).

Conclusion: The presence of one unstamped invoice discovered by random verification does not, standing alone, establish that the sales invoices submitted by the claimant uniformly lacked the para 2(b) endorsement.

Issue 2 - Whether non-compliance with para 2(b) is fatal to refund entitlement when other conditions are satisfied

Legal framework: Notification No. 102/2007-Customs sets out cumulative conditions (including para 2(b), payment of SAD at import, payment of VAT/CST on sale, and submission of supporting documents) for refund of SAD.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on earlier bench decisions and a Larger Bench determination which examined whether para 2(b) is a mandatory substantive requirement or a procedural/technical condition. That Larger Bench concluded that, for trader-importers issuing commercial invoices that do not indicate duty particulars, the endorsement in para 2(b) is not a substantive prerequisite for refund if other conditions are satisfied.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the object and genesis of SAD and its refund mechanism - SAD was levied to counterbalance local taxes on domestic goods; refund/exemption aims to avoid double taxation where the imported good bears local sales tax on subsequent sale. The Tribunal observed that Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules requires particulars for availing credit; where commercial invoices do not show duty particulars, the buyer cannot take CENVAT credit. Thus, the substantive purpose of para 2(b) - to prevent double benefit by a buyer taking credit while the seller claims refund - is achieved where invoices do not disclose duty. Applying principles of liberal construction of exemption notifications, the Tribunal held that the endorsement requirement is procedural/technical in such trader-to-trader commercial invoice contexts and non-compliance will not automatically defeat refund when other statutory conditions are met.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The Larger Bench holding that the para 2(b) endorsement is procedural (not fatal) in the described factual setting is treated as binding in the Tribunal's reasoning and applied as the ratio for allowing refund in this appeal.

Conclusion: Non-affixation of the para 2(b) endorsement on commercial invoices that do not show duty particulars is not necessarily fatal; if other conditions of the notification are satisfied (payment of SAD at import, payment of appropriate sales tax/VAT, furnishing of prescribed documents), refund entitlement may survive. The Tribunal applied this principle to allow the refund claim.

Issue 3 - Whether a Chartered Accountant's certificate suffices to adjudicate and negate unjust enrichment

Legal framework: The notification requires the importer to produce, inter alia, invoices and documents evidencing payment of sales tax/VAT; the concept of unjust enrichment prohibits refund if the importer has passed the incidence of SAD to the buyer. Administrative guidance (public notice/Circular) and standing orders recognize CA certificates as relevant evidence to determine whether incidence was passed on.

Precedent treatment: Prior Tribunal decisions have held that a Chartered Accountant's certificate confirming that the importer has not passed on the SAD incidence can be sufficient to adjudicate the bar of unjust enrichment, subject to other corroborative documents and satisfaction of the authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that a CA certificate in prescribed format, corroborated by invoices and tax payment records, can establish that the seller did not pass on the duty to buyers, and thereby rebut the charge of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority's rejection of the CA certificate for failing to verify documents was criticized where the certificate was produced in the prescribed format and other documentary evidence (invoices, VAT/CST payments, correlation certificates) had been submitted. The Tribunal held that where the purpose of para 2(b) is otherwise fulfilled (e.g., invoices do not disclose duty) and a CA certificate attests non-passing of incidence, the certificate is adequate to address unjust enrichment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The acceptance of a CA certificate as sufficient evidence to discharge the onus of unjust enrichment in the described factual matrix is applied as operative ratio in allowing the refund; it aligns with prior Tribunal findings and administrative circulars.

Conclusion: A Chartered Accountant's certificate, in the prescribed format and supported by relevant sale invoices and tax payment documents, is sufficient to adjudicate and negate the bar of unjust enrichment for the purpose of sanctioning the refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs.

Cross-references and Overall Conclusion

The Tribunal applied earlier Tribunal and Larger Bench reasoning that (i) the para 2(b) endorsement is procedural in cases where commercial invoices do not record duty particulars, (ii) an isolated unstamped invoice uncovered by random verification is insufficient to infer systemic non-compliance, and (iii) a CA certificate in prescribed form, together with corroborative tax and invoice documentation, can discharge the requirement to rule out unjust enrichment. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim should have been allowed and set aside the impugned rejection.

---