Refund rejected due to non-submission of CA Certificate: CESTAT gives opportunity of furnishing further documents

Refund rejected due to non-submission of CA Certificate: CESTAT gives opportunity of furnishing further documents Refund rejected in a cryptic manner due to non-submission of CA Certificate: Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) gives the opportunity of hearing and furnishing further documents In this matter, the original authority has rejected the refund claim of the Taxpayer stating that the appellant did not produce the Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate to prove that burden of 4% Additional Duty has not been passed on to the buyer. It was thus held by the original authority that the claimant has not produced the Chartered Accountant certificate to rule out unjust enrichment. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider submissions of the claimant and passed a very short order stating that if the documents had been produced the same would have been available with the original authority and that appellant has not produced proof of submission of documents. As per CESTAT, both the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) 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. As a result, the matter was 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. To Read Judgement Download PDF Given Below: