2010 (11) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of SAD - Limitation - The appellants paid the duty when the Notification 93/2008 dated 1-8-2008 was not in operation - Therefore the payment of duty in this case is not bound by Notification 93/2008 as the Notification came into force only on 1-8-2008 - Any payment of duty made after 1-8-2008 refund of the same shall be entitled if the same is filed within one year but the duty is payable pursuant to Notification 102/2007 dated 14th September 07 prior to 1-8-2008 the limitation period is not applicable in the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. Decisions of the Tribunal as well as of the Hon ble Apex Court particularly in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE 2007 -TMI - 1061 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA it was held that beneficial circular to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular applicable prospectively - Thus the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant holding time bar is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of refund claim of SAD payment on the grounds of limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by them, which was denied citing limitation. The appellant had paid the duty in October/November 2007 and filed the refund claim accordingly. The dispute arose due to Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008, which introduced a time limit for filing refund claims of SAD payment. The appellant argued that since they paid the duty before the introduction of this time limit, they were entitled to the refund claim without any limitation. The appellant contended that Notification No. 102/2007, which was applicable when the duty was paid, did not specify any time limit for filing refund claims. The appellant relied on legal precedents stating that beneficial circulars should apply retrospectively, while oppressive circulars should apply prospectively.

The department, represented by the learned JDR, argued that a clarification was provided through Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008, stating that the time limit for filing refund applications is not restricted by the Customs Act, 1962, but for SAD refund claims, the normal time limit should be one year. Since the appellant filed the refund claim beyond the prescribed one-year period, the department upheld the denial of the claim on the grounds of being time-barred.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the judge examined the case records. The judge acknowledged that the duty was paid by the appellant before the introduction of the time limit specified in Notification No. 93/2008. Referring to legal precedents, including the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur, the judge concluded that the duty paid before the enforcement of the time limit should not be bound by the subsequent notification. The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order that rejected the refund claim on the basis of time limitation. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of the timing of duty payment concerning the introduction of time limits for refund claims. It emphasized the retrospective application of beneficial circulars and the principle that duties paid before the enforcement of restrictive notifications should not be subject to subsequent limitations.