Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs: VAT/CST proof and accountant certificate suffice, but one-year limitation remains binding.

For refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, copies of VAT/CST payment documents supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate were treated as sufficient compliance where original challans were difficult to produce, and the certificate format in the public notice was held to be indicative rather than mandatory. The substantive refund requirement and unjust enrichment condition were therefore satisfied on the eligible claims. However, the statutory one-year limitation for filing the refund claim remained binding, so claims relating to bills of entry filed beyond that period were inadmissible, while only the timely claims could be allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the importer satisfied the condition of producing documents evidencing payment of appropriate VAT/CST on sale of the imported goods, along with a Chartered Accountant's certificate, for refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs. (ii) Whether rejection of the Chartered Accountant's certificate for not being in the format prescribed in Public Notice No. 39/2011 was justified. (iii) Whether the refund claim in respect of four specified bills of entry was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the importer satisfied the condition of producing documents evidencing payment of appropriate VAT/CST on sale of the imported goods, along with a Chartered Accountant's certificate, for refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs.

Analysis: The refund notification required the importer to furnish documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax on the sale of imported goods. The Board circular clarified that, where original challans are difficult to produce, copies of ST/VAT payment documents accompanied by a Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying the payment are sufficient to meet the notification requirement. Since the importer produced copies of VAT/CST payment documents and the certificate was based on verification of the relevant records, the prescribed condition stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the Chartered Accountant's certificate for not being in the format prescribed in Public Notice No. 39/2011 was justified.

Analysis: The public notice described the suggested formats for Chartered Accountant certification as indicative. No mandatory statutory format was prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Customs itself. A procedural format requirement cannot defeat the substantive refund entitlement where the underlying documents and certificate otherwise establish compliance with the notification and the unjust enrichment requirement.

Conclusion: The rejection of the certificate on format grounds was not justified and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the refund claim in respect of four specified bills of entry was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The amended refund notification required the claim to be filed within one year from the date of payment of the additional duty. On the dates reflected in the record, the claims relating to the four specified bills of entry were lodged beyond the one-year period. The limitation requirement is mandatory and the claims could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The refund claim for the four specified bills of entry is barred by limitation and this issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim succeeds only to the extent of the bills of entry filed within the prescribed time, while the claims filed beyond the limitation period remain inadmissible. The order was therefore interfered with only for the eligible portion and sustained for the time-barred portion.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, copies of VAT/CST payment documents supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate can satisfy the documentary requirement, and an indicative certificate format cannot be treated as mandatory; however, the statutory one-year limitation for filing the refund claim remains binding.

---