9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 222 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - refund claim of the Appellant has been rejected as time barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the OIA passed by the First Appellate Authority was upheld by CESTAT. In this regard, it is relevant that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CC, ICD, New Delhi Vs Chandra Prabhu International Ltd (2014 (3) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that the refund of anti dumping duty will be covered under the provisions of Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act and that the provisions of Section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act has got only extremely restricted application. - refund claim cannot be rejected as time barred under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of any Rules of limitation framed under Section 9AA(2)(i) of Customs Tariff Act. A reasonable period has to be considered as appropriate for filing refund claim. As other refund claims of anti dumping duty of the Appellant after issuing of corrigendum were sanctioned to the Appellant, it has to be held that the refund claim filed by the Appellant is not time barred, when anti dumping duty after issue of corrigendum dt.31.03.2011 to Notification No.30/2011-Cus, dt.14.07.2010, became without authority of law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim filed after a period of 2 years from the original assessment. 2. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the refund claim. 3. Interpretation of Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act regarding refund of anti-dumping duty. 4. Absence of Rules prescribing time limits for refund claims under Rule 9AA(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 1: Refund claim filed after a period of 2 years from the original assessment. The First Appellate Authority framed the issue of whether the Appellant was correct in filing a refund claim after a significant period from the original assessment. The Authority rejected the refund claim, citing previous decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Appellant's representative argued that a corrigendum issued later made the original assessment irrelevant, and other refund claims were sanctioned post the corrigendum. The representative relied on a case law from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to support the argument that the time limit for the refund claim should be considered reasonable in the absence of specific Rules. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the refund claim. The Revenue's representative contended that since the original assessment was not contested and was upheld by CESTAT, the refund claim was time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the refund of anti-dumping duty falls under Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act, and the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act have limited application in such cases. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act regarding refund of anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal referred to the case law from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to establish that Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act is a comprehensive code for refund claims related to anti-dumping duty. The Court emphasized that the mechanism for refund under Section 9AA supersedes the general provisions of the Customs Act, and the absence of specific Rules on time limits necessitates a reasonable period for filing refund claims. Issue 4: Absence of Rules prescribing time limits for refund claims under Rule 9AA(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of Rules regarding time limits for refund claims under Rule 9AA(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 necessitates a consideration of a reasonable period for filing such claims. It was noted that since other refund claims of the Appellant were sanctioned post the issuance of a corrigendum, the refund claim in question should not be considered time-barred. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant, emphasizing that the refund claim cannot be rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to the absence of specific Rules on limitations for refund claims related to anti-dumping duty under Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act.
|
