Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 121 - AT - CustomsRefund of additional duties of customs (SAD) paid on imported goods - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - Held that - refund claim in respect of disputed 26 bills of entry were filed on 4-11-2009 i.e. within one year. It is only after department took the view that the bills of entry were provisionally assessed that the respondent had withdrawn the refund claim and filed subsequently on bills of entry finally assessed. We find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), that inasmuch as the original refund claim was well within time, withdrawal of the same and subsequently filed will not affect the limitation provided under the law. The date of original filing of refund is required to be taken as the date of filing refund claim. As such, he has rightly set aside the impugned order of the lower authorities and have directed the lower authorities to scrutinise the refund claim as per law and if found in order, sanction the same. No infirmity is found in the order - Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Refund of additional duties of customs paid on imported goods in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007; Rejection of refund claim by the original adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation.
Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of additional duties of customs paid on imported goods under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The respondent had filed a refund claim for 34 bills of entry, out of which some were provisionally assessed. The original adjudicating authority granted the refund for finally assessed bills but rejected the refund claim of Rs. 29,38,517 related to eight provisionally assessed bills, citing limitation as the reason for rejection. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the refund claim was initially filed on 4-11-2009 for Rs. 74,20,177, including the amount related to provisionally assessed bills. The appellant later withdrew the claim for provisionally assessed bills and refiled it on 10-3-2010. The Commissioner found that the original filing of the refund claim was within the stipulated period of one year from the date of duty payment. The appellant had fulfilled the conditions of the exemption notification, and the Commissioner directed the lower authorities to scrutinize the refund claim and sanction it if found in order. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the observations of the appellate authority, upheld the decision that the original refund claim was filed within the time limit. The withdrawal and subsequent filing of the claim did not affect the limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that the date of the original refund filing should be considered, and directed the lower authorities to review the refund claim without deeming it time-barred. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and instructed the lower authorities to proceed accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the stay petition and disposed of the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision on the refund claim issue. The Tribunal's ruling clarified the importance of the original filing date of the refund claim and emphasized adherence to the provisions of the exemption notification to determine the refund eligibility without being constrained by limitation constraints.
|