Case Law Details
Ingram Micro India Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports)(CESTAT Chennai)
It can be seen that the refund claim is rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Chartered Accountant certificate to establish that the burden of 4% Additional Duty has not been passed on to another. In page 21 of the appeal paper book, the appellant has produced a letter dated 14.05.2010 in which it is stated that in continuation of their refund claim submitted they are producing further documents. On perusal of the order passed by both the authorities, I find that they have not cared to peruse the documents submitted by the appellant. The refund claim has been rejected in a cryptic manner. It is to be borne by the authorities below that interest on such delayed refund is paid out of public money and therefore the refund claims have to be processed in proper manner after perusing the documents produced by the claimants. In the present case, though the refund claim is received on 16.06.2009, the adjudicating authority has passed the order only on 21.06.2012. The adjudicating authority ought to have conducted one more personal hearing so as to make sure whether the appellants have furnished necessary documents before rejecting the appeal on such technical grounds. Besides the liability to pay interest, both sides incur litigation expenses also, of which the expense of the department is borne from the public exchequer. These type of unnecessary litigations have to be avoided.
In the result, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to process the refund claim on the basis of documents produced by the appellant. The appellant shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing and also for furnishing any documents, if necessary. The impugned order is set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
