TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te authority has rejected the appellant's appeal and upheld the Order in Original No.35462/2015 dated 24-04-2015 passed by the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellant filed a claim for refund of 4% additional duty of customs levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 paid by them. The refund was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the chartered accountant's certificate dated 17.02.2014 submitted by the appellant is not as per the procedural requirements as per the extant instructions vide Public Notice No.39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 and Board's Circulars No.06/2008 dated 28.04.2008 and No.16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008 and also copies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificate that arose for consideration. Ld. Counsel contends that extant Board Circulars also have clarified that once the chartered accountant certifies that the SAD burden has not been passed on and has been borne by the appellant, coupled with the appellant's self-certification also attesting to this aspect, that would suffice to sanction the refund. It is contended that the impugned order rejecting the appeal was therefore incorrect. 4. Ms. Rajani Menon, Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the appellate authority. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed without considering the documents submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccounts for the period ended March 31, 2013 and has also certified that the burden of 4% additional duty has not been passed on by the importer to the buyer or any other person and that the requirement to rule out unjust enrichment has been fulfilled. When the refund claim pertained to a singular retail invoice which was submitted along with the relevant BE and other import documents and the details of the retail invoice were provided in the calculation worksheet for SAD refund dated 17-04-2013 submitted as Annexure-A, summary of sales invoices dated 17-04-2013 submitted as Annexure-C as well as the calculation worksheet for SAD refund and further incorporated in the CA certificate dated 18-04-2013 issued not to mention even the self-declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in what manner they were deficient. The reasoning that the CA certificate issued did not state that it was a revision of the earlier one or that the date of such certificate is beyond one year were specious to say the least. The Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated that this is not a place keeping claim submitted without any supporting documents. On the contrary, the documents submitted were perceived deficient. Further by a catena of decisions, the issue is settled that the relevant date to be considered for determining whether the refund claim was submitted in time, was the date of original submission of the claim. The decisions in United Phosphorous Ltd v Union of India, reported in 2005 (184) ELT 240 (Guj), Abhedya Industries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the importer to any other person. Further, the importer shall also make a self-declaration along with the refund claim to the effect that he has not passed on the incidence of 4% CVD to any other person. Hence, there is no need for insisting on production of audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in these cases. It may also be noted that recently the Board has also notified the list of documents required to be filed by the applicant along with the refund claim (Annexure-II) which is also displayed in the departmental website. Hence, other than these aforesaid documents, no other document would be required in the normal course of granting 4% CVD refund. 7. Board also desires that the Commissioner of Customs shall person....