Jumar Trade Links Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports) (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai rejection of refund claim merely for non-mentioning of period particulars in CA’s certificate unjustifiable as rejection of claim on this basis would be harsh.
Facts- Appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.2,28,822/- being the amount paid against 4% Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) for the import of Galvanized Steel Coils/Strips vide 5 Bills of Entry. The appellant claimed refund in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 as amended and submitted the relevant documents for proof of the same. The proper officer finding certain discrepancies in the claim including the lack of endorsement regarding the ADC not being made on the sales invoices, rejected the refund claim. On appeal the Appellate Authority rejected the refund claim. Hence this appeal.
Conclusion- Held that in the CA’s certificate there is a non-mention of the period particulars to determine whether certificate pertains to the Bills of Entry under this refund claim. This doubt was easily verifiable by the department by writing to the CA or by physical verification. Rejecting a claim on this basis and due to certain procedural discrepancies, would be harsh.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The present appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal C. Cus. No. 1347/2014 dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai (impugned order).
