9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 937 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund claim - SAD - Notification no. 102/2007 dt.14.09.2007 - Claim filed with wrong jurisdiction officer - Held that - notification does not requires the claim to be filed with the jurisdictional customs officer, who, in this case, was the proper officer at CFS, Mulund. By mistake, their consultant filed these claims in question at Dadri. The said claims were forwarded after a few months by Customs to ICD, Mulund. There is no dispute on the fact that the claims were filed within the stipulated time limit of one year but with ICD Dadri. There is also no dispute on the fact that the claims were received subsequently in CFS Mulund. I note that although notification 102/2007 requires refund claim to be filed with the jurisdictional Customs authorities. A similar issue came up before the Gujarat High Court relating to Notification no. 41/2007-ST wherein also the requirement of filing refund before the jurisdictional Customs officer was stipulated. - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Grant of SAD refund under notification no. 102/2007.
Analysis: Issue 1: Refund Claim Jurisdiction The appeals addressed a common issue concerning the grant of SAD refund under notification no. 102/2007. The appellants filed refund claims at ICD, Dadri within the stipulated one-year period from the payment of SAD. However, the goods were imported at CFS, Mulund, where the SAD was actually paid. By the time the refund claims reached the authorities at Mulund, over a year had passed since the duty payment. Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Interpretation The appellants' counsel cited a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a similar case involving the refund of service tax, emphasizing that filing the original application within the time limit, albeit before the wrong authority, did not render the claim time-barred. The AR, on the other hand, relied on the specific wording of notification no. 102/2007, which mandated filing the refund claim with the jurisdictional customs officer. Issue 3: Application of Legal Principles The Tribunal considered the requirement of filing the refund claim with the jurisdictional customs officer, as specified in the notification. Despite the claims being initially submitted at Dadri instead of Mulund due to an error by the consultant, the claims were within the one-year limit and eventually reached CFS Mulund. Drawing parallels to a case involving Notification no. 41/2007-ST, the Tribunal analyzed the question of whether the limitation period could be excluded when the application was mistakenly filed before the wrong authority. Judgment: In light of the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellants, emphasizing that since the original refund applications were filed within the prescribed time, albeit before the correct authority, the claims could not be considered time-barred. This decision aligned with the interpretation of similar cases by the Hon'ble High Court, highlighting the importance of timely filing over technical errors in authority submission. This detailed analysis of the judgment regarding the grant of SAD refund under notification no. 102/2007 provides a comprehensive overview of the issues, legal interpretations, precedents, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
