2015 (3) TMI 1079 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - imports are prior to 1.8.2008 - Held that - Following the ruling of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) we hold that in the present case where the imports and duty are made prior to 1.8.2008, the amendment prescribed under Notification No. 93/2008 cannot be made applicable. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The respondent is held to be entitled to the refund. We further direct the concerned adjudicating authority to disburse the refund within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the rejection of a refund claim based on limitation.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 93/2008 on refund claims for imports prior to 1.8.2008.
3. Interpretation of limitation period for refund claims in the context of amending notifications.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the rejection of a refund claim by the assessee due to limitation. The Commissioner held that the limitation would not apply as the imports and duty payments were made prior to 1.8.2008, rendering Notification No. 93/2008 inapplicable. The Revenue contended that the limitation of one year from the date of payment of duty should be enforced, as per the notification. The Tribunal considered the arguments and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the refund to be granted within 60 days.

2. The Tribunal referred to the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, where the issue of retrospective application of limitation for refund claims was discussed. The High Court observed that limitation is a substantive right and cannot be imposed through subordinate legislation without statutory amendment. The Court held that an amending notification imposing a limitation period must be read down to the extent of such imposition. In light of this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment under Notification No. 93/2008 could not be applied to imports and duty payments made before 1.8.2008, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal and upholding the assessee's entitlement to the refund.

3. The legal counsel for the respondent cited the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case to argue that the issue was settled law. The High Court's ruling emphasized that in matters affecting substantive rights, such as limitations on refund claims, the parent enactment must clearly establish such obligations, and subordinate legislation cannot override statutory provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal relied on this legal principle to support its decision in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of upholding substantive rights and statutory clarity in matters of limitations on refund claims.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, precedents, and the Tribunal's rationale in deciding the appeal concerning the rejection of a refund claim based on limitation and the applicability of relevant notifications to imports made before a specified date.