The Delhi High Court has held that the Chartered Accountant’s (CA) certificate sufficient proof of excise duty incidence for refund claim.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta had observed that In the face of the chartered accountant’s certificate and documents that have been submitted by the company, there has to be some evidence to the contrary that would require the Adjudicating Authority to reject the refund. Apart from the documents submitted by the Respondent company along with the chartered accountant’s certificate, there may be no other way to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the consumer, especially, after a lapse of so many years.
The Appellant- Principal Commissioner of Customs (ACC Imports) has challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
On 17th March, 2012 the Government of India issued Notification No. 12/2012-CE vide which, exemption from excise duty was granted to certain goods. The notification was later amended vide Notification No.
4/2014-CE dated 17th February, 2014 and Notification No. 12/2015-CE dated 1st March, 2015.
Vide Notification No. III mobile handsets including cellular phones specifying 1% duty with Condition No. 16 were granted exemptions from excise duty. Condition 16 is extracted below for ready reference: “If no credit under rule 3 or rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been taken in respect of the inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of these goods”.
The Respondent company, Nokia India imported mobile phones during the years, 2014-2015 and paid additional duty of customs at the rate of 6% up to February, 2015. Thereafter, the Company while placing reliance on the judgment, SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai filed for a refund on the ground that it is entitled to exemption as provided in Serial No. 263A (ii) of the Notification No.I.
The refund claim which was made by the Respondent company was sanctioned, however, instead of giving it to the Respondent it was directed to be credited to the consumer welfare fund in terms of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The orders were challenged by the Respondent company and the appeals were dismissed on 5th September, 2019.
The department submitted that the clear question of law that arises is whether the chartered accountant certificate would be sufficient to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on by the Respondent Company to the consumers, without submitting the supporting accounting documents and ledger accounts. Further, the burden is on the Respondent company to show that the duty was not passed on to the consumers and that refund is liable to be granted. This burden is not discharged.
The court held that it cannot be said that the initial burden has not been discharged by the company. The CESTAT has rightly taken a view which this Court is not inclined to interfere with. The refund is now liable to be granted to the Respondent company.
Case Details
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs Versus Nokia India
Case No.: CUSAA 66/2025 & CM APPL. 23910/2025
Date: 7th July, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: R. Ramachandran
Counsel For Respondent: Kamal Sawhney
Read More: GSTR-1 Filing Glitches on July 13: GSTN Says Issue Was Resolved Swiftly, Filing Numbers Hit New High
