2013 (11) TMI 1043 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - Import and sale of watch in domestic market - No declaration made on the invoices issued for domestic sale to the effect that no CENVAT credit can be taken based on such invoice - Refund claim filed after the finalization of assessment - Held that - provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be read into Notification No. 102/2007. No doubt the decision in the case of Global International Vs. CCE, Kanpur 2013 (11) TMI 1016 - CESTAT NEW DELHI was not brought to the notice of the learned Member when the decision relied upon by the appellant was taken but the fact remains that the earlier decision was rendered taking the peculiar facts into consideration in that case and in the absence of existence of such facts, the proper decision to be applied would be the one in the case of Global International. In this view of the matter I am unable to accept the submission that the date of finalization of provisional assessment has to be taken into account for the purpose of considering the refund claim. Accordingly the rejection of the refund claim filed on 31.08.2009 is upheld - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims for SAD paid on imported products sold in the domestic market.
2. Rejection of refund claims based on declaration requirements on invoices.
3. Time-barred refund claim filed beyond one year from duty payment.
4. Interpretation of the relevant date for the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed three refund claims for SAD paid on imported watches sold domestically. Two claims were rejected due to missing declarations on invoices, but the tribunal referred to a precedent where such declarations were not necessary for refund eligibility. Thus, the rejection of these claims was overturned, making the appellant eligible for refunds totaling Rs. 4,40,910 and Rs. 5,82,735.

2. Regarding the refund claim filed on 31.08.2009, it was deemed time-barred as it exceeded the one-year limit from the duty payment date. The appellant argued that since the assessment was provisional, the finalization date should be considered for the one-year period. However, the tribunal relied on a different case law where the one-year period was calculated from the duty payment date, not the assessment finalization date. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim filed on 31.08.2009 was upheld.

3. The tribunal differentiated the case of Singla Trading Co., where the refund claim was allowed post-assessment finalization based on specific circumstances. However, a circular clarified that the one-year period for refund claims should start from the duty payment date. The tribunal sided with the interpretation that provisions of the Customs Act could not be applied to the refund notification. Thus, the date of finalization of provisional assessment was not considered for the refund claim filed on 31.08.2009, leading to its rejection.

4. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim filed on 31.08.2009, emphasizing that the one-year period for refund claims should commence from the duty payment date. The decision was based on the interpretation that the Customs Act provisions could not be applied to the refund notification. The appellant was advised of potential consequential relief resulting from the order.