Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal concerned the rejection of a refund claim of 4% additional duty of customs levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The refund claim, filed on 22.04.2013, was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the chartered accountant’s certificate submitted by the appellant did not meet procedural requirements prescribed under the relevant public notice and Board circulars, and that certified copies of VAT/CST returns were not furnished. The appellate authority upheld this rejection, holding that the deficiencies pointed out through a deficiency memo dated 30.01.2015 were not cured within the stipulated fifteen days, that no extension was sought, and that the revised chartered accountant’s certificate was obtained beyond one year and did not explicitly state that it revised the earlier certificate.
The appellant contended that no deficiencies were communicated for over one and a half years after filing the refund claim and that, upon receipt of the departmental letter dated 18.12.2014, a revised chartered accountant’s certificate and other details in the prescribed format were duly submitted on 02.04.2015. It was argued that curing procedural deficiencies after the original filing does not affect the validity of a refund claim filed within time, and that the relevant Board circulars permitted sanction of refund based on a chartered accountant’s certificate and a self-declaration confirming that the burden of duty had not been passed on.
