9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 524 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - time limit - The appellant paid duty in respect of Bills of Entry No.775758 ,768618 on 9.4.08 & 02.04.08 respectively.They filed refund claim on 21.4.09, the Board s Circular was issued on 28.4.2008 and the amending notification was issued on 1.8.2008. Held that - in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. (2003 - TMI - 46706 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY - Central Excise) even if the amendment is not to have retrospective effect, it would nevertheless have retroactive effect and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner s would be covered within the amended period of limitation and thus the petitioners would be entitled to rebate of duty. Appeal is allowed.
Issues:
- Refund claim rejection based on time bar under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. - Applicability of time limit for refund claim under amended Notification No. 93/2008. - Interpretation of retrospective and prospective effect of amending notifications. - Comparison of relevant case laws supporting the appellant and the department's contentions. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 5,56,000 under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The lower authorities rejected the claim citing a time bar issue. The appellant argued that the time limit was introduced through an amendment in Notification No. 93/2008, which prescribed a 1-year limit for refund claims. The appellant contended that even considering the amendment, their claim fell within the prescribed time limit. They relied on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, to support their claim for retrospective application of beneficial circulars. The Tribunal's decision in Audioplus case was also cited, which favored the assessee in similar circumstances. The department, on the other hand, referred to Board Circular No. 06/08-Cus. and relevant case laws to support their stance that the time limit should be applied as per the prevailing law at the material time. They emphasized that the amendment to the notification introduced a time limit, and the law in force at the time of the claim should be considered. The department cited judgments, including a Bombay High Court decision, to argue that extension of limitation does not equate to the repeal of old laws and that substantive rights existing at the time of the amendment should be upheld. Upon careful review of submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the facts regarding duty payment and refund claim were undisputed. The issue primarily revolved around the interpretation of the time limit in relation to the circular and amending notification. The Tribunal reiterated the principle from the Suchitra Components Ltd. case that beneficial circulars should be applied retrospectively. It distinguished the cited case laws by the department, emphasizing that the specific notification in question did not originally contain a time limit, which was introduced later through an amendment. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refund claim fell within the prescribed time limit even after considering the amendment. It highlighted that the amendment to the notification did not affect the existing substantive right of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on legal interpretations to support its decision in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order and allowing the appeal.
|
