Rejection of SAD Refund for Missing Period in CA Certificate: CESTAT Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter to AA for Verification [Read Order]
The tribunal noted that the refund was not disallowed on the merits or due to doubts over the certificate’s authenticity, but solely because the relevant period was left blank.
![Rejection of SAD Refund for Missing Period in CA Certificate: CESTAT Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter to AA for Verification [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/24/2068566-refund-sad-taxscan.webp "Rejection of SAD Refund for Missing Period in CA Certificate: CESTAT Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter to AA for Verification [Read Order]")
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the rejection of a SAD refund claim, which was earlier denied due to a Chartered Accountant (CA)’s certificate missing the specified period of verification, and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) for verification.Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law!...
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the rejection of a SAD refund claim, which was earlier denied due to a Chartered Accountant (CA)’s certificate missing the specified period of verification, and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) for verification.
Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law! Click here
N.R. Colours Ltd.,appellant-assessee, filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund claim. The refund was initially denied through Order-in-Original No. 30689/2014 dated 28.10.2014 on the ground that the CA’s certificate submitted in support of the claim did not specify the relevant period, as the space for the period was left blank. The authority noted that the assessee had failed to respond to or rectify this defect.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-II), Chennai. However, the First Appellate Authority, vide Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.II No. 230/2015 dated 27.02.2015, upheld the rejection, observing that the assessee had not complied with the requirement of indicating the period in the certificate. The present appeal before the tribunal arose from this order.
Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law! Click here
A single member bench of P.Dinesha (Judicial Member) observed that the refund was not rejected due to doubts over the CA's certificate but because it was incomplete as the period for which the books were verified was left blank.
It noted that the assessee did not place the certificate on record before the tribunal and relied only on verbal arguments, which could not substitute documentary evidence.
If the certificate was found complete, the authority was directed to process the refund without raising any new objections. The appeal was disposed of, keeping all other contentions open.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
