9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 988 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund claim - SAD - Notification No. 102/2007 dt. 14.9.2007 - Bar of limitation - Held that - As far as filing of refund claims within the statutory time limit but filed before the wrong authority is concerned, the issue already stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Singh International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai and Polyglass Acrycle Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2015 (4) TMI 937 - CESTAT MUMBAI , in which reliance was placed on the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat judgement in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd 2010 (9) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Therefore, refund of ₹ 2,58,412/- is allowed. - As regards the remaining 2 Bills of Entry in which the refund claim was filed beyond the period of 1 year the refund is rejected, in view of the statutory time limit laid in the law. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues: Grant of SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007; Filing refund claims before the wrong authority; Statutory time limit for filing refund claims.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal concerning the grant of SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007. The issue revolved around the rejection of an amount of &8377; 2,58,412/- in respect of 2 Bills of Entry due to filing the refund claims before the wrong authority. The appellant filed claims before the authorities in Baroda Commissionerate instead of Nhava Sheva Customs, leading to rejection. However, it was noted that the claims were filed within the statutory time limit before the Baroda Commissionerate for some Bills of Entry, which was a crucial point of contention. 2. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and referred to previous decisions to address the issue of filing refund claims before the wrong authority but within the statutory time limit. Citing cases like Singh International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai and Polyglass Acrycle Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. to allow the refund of &8377; 2,58,412/- for the Bills of Entry filed before the wrong authority but within the stipulated time frame. 3. However, for the two Bills of Entry where the refund claims were filed beyond the statutory time period of 1 year, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund. The decision was based on the clear statutory time limit prescribed by the law for filing refund claims, emphasizing the importance of adhering to such timelines in legal matters. 4. In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, with the refund of &8377; 2,58,412/- being granted for Bills of Entry filed before the wrong authority but within the statutory time limit, while the refund for the Bills of Entry filed beyond the prescribed time period was rejected. The cross-objection was also disposed of as part of the final decision pronounced and dictated in court.
|
