Case Law Details
Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Custom (Refunds) (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the rejection of refund of additional custom duty merely because the model number is missing in sale invoice is justified in law?
High Court states that, Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007, provides for refund of Additional Duty of Customs paid under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 upon sale of imported goods in India, subject to certain conditions. Among the conditions prescribed, the importer was required to pay the appropriate Sales Tax or Value Added Tax and should also produce documents evidencing payment of appropriate Sales Tax or Value Added Tax, as the case may be, on sale of such imported goods. By Circular No.6/2008 dated 28.04.2008, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had prescribed the procedures to be adopted for refund of the 4% Additional Duty of Customs, in pursuance of Notification No.102/2007 dated importer was required to furnish a certificate from the Statutory Auditor, certifying that the imported goods and the local goods are one and the same. The respondent had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the model numbers seen in the import document are missing in the Sales Invoice effected legally in India and therefore, had jumped into the conclusion that the products imported and sold in India are not one and the same. When such an infirmity is noticed by the respondent, there was a duty cast on them to place reliance on the Statutory Auditor’s certificate and the correlation statement, as required under Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. Though the condition prescribed under the notification does not prescribe a different procedure and even assuming that the respondent was not satisfied with the certificate issued by the Statutory Auditor, such a decision should be based on certain incriminating and reliable documents before him and further, the reasons for disbelieving the certificate requires to be spelt out. Such a proposition has been laid down by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in PP Products Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the impugned order of rejection of the refund application is totally opposed to the procedural regulation and hence the authority, exercising his powers, has exceeded his jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order itself is liable to be quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The Writ Petition was called through Video Conferencing on 03.08.2020. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
