Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

CA Certification with Self Declaration Sufficient for 4% SAD Refund: CESTAT Criticises ‘Perfunctory’ Rejection [Read Order]

The bench said that curing of procedural defects cannot render a time-barred claim when the initial claim was validly filed.

CA Certification with Self Declaration Sufficient for 4% SAD Refund: CESTAT Criticises ‘Perfunctory’ Rejection [Read Order]
X

The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT) ruled that CA certificate with self declaration sufficient for allowing 4% SAD ( Special Additional Duty ) refund. The tribunal said that the refund cannot be denied on procedural and hyper-technical grounds when the refund claim was filed within time and the alleged deficiencies were...


The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT) ruled that CA certificate with self declaration sufficient for allowing 4% SAD ( Special Additional Duty ) refund.

The tribunal said that the refund cannot be denied on procedural and hyper-technical grounds when the refund claim was filed within time and the alleged deficiencies were subsequently cured.

The appeal was filed by Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. The Bench of Mr. M. Ajit Kumar ( Technical Member) and Mr. Ajayan T.V. ( Judicial Member), noted that the appellant had filed its SAD refund claim on 22.04.2013 along with a CA certificate certifying that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. Therefore it satisfied the condition of unjust enrichment.

However, after a delay of more than one and a half years, the Department raised objections seeking a revised CA certificate in a particular format and certified copies of VAT/CST returns.

Despite the appellant submitting the revised certificate and documents on 02.04.2015, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim without considering the same. The appellate authority mechanically upheld the rejection.

The Tribunal observed that the Department itself did not dispute that the original refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit. The bench said that curing of procedural defects cannot render a time-barred claim when the initial claim was validly filed.

The appellate tribunal, noting the CBEC Circulars, said that a CharteredAccountant’s certificate coupled with a self-declaration is sufficient to establish that the burden of duty has not been passed on.

Accordingly, the appellant's appeal was allowed. The tribunal set aside the impugned order.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs , 2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 180 , Customs Appeal No. 40019 of 2016 , 23 January 2026 , Shridev Vyas , Rajni Menon
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 180Case Number :  Customs Appeal No. 40019 of 2016Date of Judgement :  23 January 2026Coram :  M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), AJAYAN T.V, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)Counsel of Appellant :  Shridev VyasCounsel Of Respondent :  Rajni Menon
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019