2017 (12) TMI 1747 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - applicability of period of limitation to claim refund - HELD THAT - In the present case the only ground of the Revenue is that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the said High Court s order was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court only on limitation. The question of law is kept open. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have followed the decision of Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The Revenue preferred this appeal without appreciating the legal implication and making certain observations which apparently are bordering on contempt of Court. In the appeal it is submitted the judgment of Hon ble High Court is not legally tenable and the Hon ble High Court has failed to appreciate. . The said High Court s decision has not been overruled by the Higher Court and neither there is any contrary order of another High Court. In such situation the Revenue cannot make such observations which shows the non-application of mind and casual approach in appreciating the legal position of binding precedents. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Delhi - The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of period of limitation to claim refund of SAD paid on imported goods in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the applicability of the period of limitation to claim a refund of SAD paid on imported goods under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. The Tribunal noted that the issue involved was concise, and thus proceeded to decide the appeal without hearing the stay application filed by the Revenue.

The impugned order had relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in a previous case, where it was held that rejection of a refund on limitation grounds is not legally sustainable. The Revenue's main contention was that the Supreme Court had dismissed their Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court's decision on the grounds of limitation only. The Tribunal observed that the question of law remained open as the High Court's decision had not been overruled by a higher court or another High Court. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for making observations bordering on contempt of court, stating that there was no infirmity in the impugned order that followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Delhi.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Revenue's arguments showed a lack of appreciation for binding precedents and a casual approach towards the legal position. The stay application was also disposed of, and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the Delhi High Court's ruling regarding the refund of SAD paid on imported goods.