Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, allowed the appeals filed against a common Order-in-Appeal that had upheld the rejection of customs refund claims on the ground that the Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate submitted by the appellant was not in the prescribed format. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the refund claims by relying on Board Circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 13.10.2008, holding that the CA certificate did not comply with the required format. However, the authority did not question the genuineness of the refund claim and focused only on procedural deficiencies.
The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the rejection, observing that the CA certificate did not mention the relevant year, which had been identified as a deficiency by the original authority.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant relied on a previous Chennai Bench decision in WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. In that case, the Tribunal had held that the format prescribed under Public Notice No. 39/2011 was only a suggested or indicative format and not a mandatory requirement. It also noted that Notification No. 102/2007-Customs did not prescribe any specific format for a CA certificate.
