Custom Dutry Refund Claim Restored as Suggested CA Certificate Format Is Not a Mandatory Requirement

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.

Applying the same reasoning, the Tribunal held that rejection of a refund claim solely because the CA certificate was not in the suggested format was not sustainable in law. Since the refund claim itself was not disputed on merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential benefits in accordance with law. The order was pronounced on 29.05.2026.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER

These Appeals are filed against the common Order-in Appeal C.Cus. II No.154 & 155/2015 dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai. After hearing both sides, I find that both the Appeals involve common and single issue and therefore, they are taken up together for common disposal.

2. Heard Ms. Fasila, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayana, ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, perused the orders of law authorities and also considered the written submissions filed during the course of hearing. I have also considered the decision of this Bench relied in support by the learned advocate. After hearing both sides, I find that the only issue to be decided is, ‘whether the rejection of refund claim on an alleged improper Charted Accountant’s certificate, is in order/sustainable ?’.

3. A perusal of the common Orders-in-Original dt. 25.09.2014 indicates that the Adjudicating Authority after taking note of the Chartered Accountant’s certificate, held that the same was not as per the instructions in Board Circular No.06/2008–Cus. dated 28.04.2008 and No.16/2008–Cus. dated 13.10.2008. From a reading of the Orders-in-Original, it is clear to me that the Authority is not doubting the genuineness of refund claim, but is only harping on the formalities underlying the Appellant’s claim for refund.

4. When the said rejection of refund was carried in Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his short order has held that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate did not speak about the year, which is the deficiency pointed out by the Original Authority to the Appellant. It is against this order common Order-in-Appeal that has given rise to the present Appeals.

5. I find that this Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Chennai [2025 (12) TMI 902-CESTAT Chennai], which is relied upon by the learned Advocate has considered an almost identical issue, and after analysing the rival contentions in the context of the requirement of substantial requirement of law, has held as under:

“10. In the impugned order, the LAA has rejected the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that the Chartered Account Certificate submitted by the Appellant is not in proper format as per PN 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011. It is observed that the “Enclosures” part of Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 issued by Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port – Exports) reads as under:

“Enclosures: (Suggested / Indicative formats for CA certification / Self-declaration) Annexure I-V”

Therefore, the format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only suggested / indicative format and not a mandatory format prescribed for claiming refund under notification No. 102/2007-Customs. Even the notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 does not prescribe any format for Chartered Accountant Certificate. Hence, rejection of the Chartered Accountant Certificate by the adjudicating authority as well as the LAA on the ground that the same is not in proper format as per PN 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is not correct.”

6. I find that the ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the issue in these Appeals, and hence, by applying the same, I hold that the impugned common order is unsustainable in law, for which reason the same is set aside.

7. In the result, the Appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.

(Order pronounced in open court on 29.05.2026)