9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1398 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - Time limitation - N/N. 102/2007-Cus, dt.14.09.2007 - Doctrine of merger - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the refund of 4% SAD filed was in relation to import made on 15.12.2015 involving the amount of ₹ 1,25,920/- and the applicable duty was paid on 18.12.2015, i.e. beyond the period of one year as prescribed under the said notification. The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NSIII VERSUS DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS (I) PVT. LTD. 2017 (11) TMI 558 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that It is well settled that doctrine of merger is not applicable when a Special Leave Petition against a decision of a High Court is summarily dismissed without recording reasons. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of SAD filed beyond one year period. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai concerned the issue of whether a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) filed beyond the prescribed one-year period could be allowed. The Appellant had filed a refund of ?20,04,286 on 30.12.2016 for an import made on 15.12.2015 under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund except for ?1,25,920, stating that the claim was time-barred as the payment of SAD was made on 18.12.2015, but the refund was filed on 30.12.2016. The learned A.R. for the Revenue argued that the issue was settled by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CC, NS-III Vs DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the refund claim was related to an import made on 15.12.2015, with the duty paid on 18.12.2015, exceeding the one-year limitation period as per the notification. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd., where it was observed that the power to grant exemption and refund lies with the Central Government, which can set a time limit for refund applications under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the precedent set by the Bombay High Court and dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limits set for refund applications, as established by the legal provisions and judicial decisions. The decision highlighted the significance of legal precedents and the authority of the Central Government in setting such limitations, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the time-barred nature of the refund claim.
|
