2015 (2) TMI 648 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Refund claim of SAD - Bar of limitation - Held that - There is no dispute that the filing of the Bill of Entry and payment of Customs duty has taken place on 17/07/2008 and 18/07/2008 respectively. At that time there was no time-limit prescribed for filing of refund claims in the Notification 102/2007-Cus. The Notification No. 102/2007 is an exemption Notification from payment of customs duty by way of refund mechanism. The applicability of the Notification is at the time of filing of Bill of Entry and payment of customs duty. The limitation of one year cannot be made applicable in cases where customs duty payment and filing of Bill of Entry has taken place prior to the amendment which became effective on 01/08/2008. It is beyond the control of the appellant to file the refund claim within one year from the date of payment for the reason that the goods were detained by the department's Central Intelligence Unit and released on provisional basis after direction of the hon'ble High Court on 17/03/2010. It is also a settled legal position that, wherever any matter is subjudice before any Court any relief arising out of the order of the Court, the period of litigation is excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. - where duty becomes refundable, as a consequence of any judgment by Court, the one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment. In the present case, the refund arise only after the order by the hon'ble High Court on 17/03/2010 and the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of the order of the High Court. For this reason also, the refund was filed within the time-limit - impugned order is set aside - Following decision of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus.
2. Applicability of amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus.
3. Impact of High Court's order on time limitation for refund claim.
4. Interpretation of Section 27(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Time limitation for filing refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus.
The appellant filed Bills of Entry in 2008, paying 4% SAD, and later sought a refund under Notification 102/2007-Cus. The refund claim was rejected citing Circular No. 06/2008-Cus. The appellant argued that the one-year limitation did not apply as it was introduced after their duty payment. Citing a Delhi High Court judgment, it was contended that retrospective application of the amendment was impermissible.

Issue 2: Applicability of amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus.
The appellant argued that the amendment imposing a one-year limit for refund claims could not be applied retrospectively. The Delhi High Court's ruling was cited to support this position, emphasizing that the amendment did not automatically apply to cases where duty payment occurred before its enactment.

Issue 3: Impact of High Court's order on time limitation for refund claim.
The appellant highlighted that the goods were detained by the Central Intelligence Unit and released provisionally following a High Court directive. It was argued that the time taken for this legal process should be excluded from the limitation period for filing the refund claim, as per legal precedents.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 27(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The judgment discussed Section 27(1B) of the Customs Act, which stipulates that the one-year limitation for refund claims is calculated from the date of a court judgment. In this case, the refund claim was filed within one year of the High Court's order directing the release of goods, aligning with the statutory provision.

In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal examined the legal aspects of the case, emphasizing that the one-year limitation for refund claims under Notification 102/2007-Cus did not apply retroactively. Citing the Delhi High Court's ruling, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment introducing the time limit could not be enforced for duty payments made before its enactment. The impact of the High Court's order on the refund claim's timing was crucial, with the Tribunal noting that the period of litigation was excluded from the limitation calculation. Additionally, the interpretation of Section 27(1B) of the Customs Act clarified that the one-year limit for refunds was triggered by court judgments, aligning with the timeline of events in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the earlier order and allowed the appeal, providing relief in accordance with the law.