9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 889 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - Notification No. 102-2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Refund of SAD - Held that - subject refund claim was initially filed on 11.07.2012, which was within the time limit of one year, as specified in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. It is the claim of the Respondent that the said refund claim was taken back by them at the request of Customs officer. However, this fact is not coming out from the records. The claim was resubmitted on 27.05.2013, by which time, the time limit of one year prescribed in the notification had clearly expired. It is observed that the time limit for filing refund claim has not been extended under any law, rules or notification. Therefore, the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 will be squarely applicable in the instant case. It is well settled law that the provisions of the notification has to be construed strictly. Further, the 9 Member Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. UOI 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , held that all claims for refund has to be preferred and adjudicated upon as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, time limit of one year prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 will also be applicable in the instant case. The case law relied upon by the Respondent is not applicable to this case as the facts of this case are different. The issue in the said case was sanction of provisionally assessed Bills of Entry which is not the case herein. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim filed under Notification No. 102-2007-Cus. 2. Withdrawal and resubmission of refund claim. 3. Time limit for filing refund claim. 4. Interpretation of CBEC Circular No. 18/2013. 5. Applicability of relevant legal provisions and case laws. 6. Decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad. Issue 1: Refund claim filed under Notification No. 102-2007-Cus. The case involved a refund claim filed by the assessee under Notification No. 102-2007-Cus. for the refund of 4% Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid on imported goods subsequently sold. The adjudicating authority noted the initial refund claim of Rs. 8,08,265 filed on 11.07.2012, which was later withdrawn by the assessee citing a notification by DGFT. The claim was resubmitted on 27.05.2013, after the time limit for filing had expired. Issue 2: Withdrawal and resubmission of refund claim. The assessee withdrew the refund claim on 04.09.2012, claiming it was done at the request of Customs officials due to a DGFT notification. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim. The claim was resubmitted on 27.05.2013, after the time limit specified in the notification had lapsed. Issue 3: Time limit for filing refund claim. The time limit for filing the refund claim was a crucial aspect of the case. The notification specified a one-year period for filing the claim from the date of payment of the additional duty of customs. The resubmitted claim fell outside this time limit, leading to its rejection by the adjudicating authority. Issue 4: Interpretation of CBEC Circular No. 18/2013. The CBEC Circular No. 18/2013 dated 29.04.2013 extended the time limit for using re-credited DEPB scrips, but it did not specifically address refund claims. The contention was raised regarding the applicability of this circular to the refund claim in question. Issue 5: Applicability of relevant legal provisions and case laws. The Appellate Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and emphasized the strict adherence to the time limits prescribed in notifications. The Tribunal cited the decision in Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. UOI, highlighting the need to adjudicate refund claims in accordance with statutory provisions. Issue 6: Decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad. After considering the arguments from both sides and analyzing the facts and legal provisions, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the resubmitted refund claim was time-barred and could not be accepted. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision in the case.
|
