9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1890 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - time limitation - Rejection on the ground that the same has been filed after the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment and as such is rejected as being barred by time - HELD THAT - The SAD exemption has been granted vide N/N. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 as issued in accordance of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act which provides power to the Central Government to grant exemption from duty by way of Notification. This Notification exempts the goods falling within the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India for subsequent sale, from the whole of the additional duty of Customs leviable thereupon in accordance of the above mentioned Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act. Whether there is any time limit prescribed by law for filing the refund claim of additional duty of Customs as stands exempted vide the N/N. 102/2007? - HELD THAT - The words used in the provision makes it clear that statute has not distinguished the nature of duty or interest, the refund whereof is claimed. Hence, even if we do not look into the amended Notification No. 93/2008, the period of limitation as applicable for filing the refund claim under Notification 102/2008 will otherwise be a period of one year in accordance of the aforesaid Section 27 of Customs Act. Thus, we cannot rule out that the Notification No. 93/2008 came into existence to align the statutory provision with the Notification which was silent as far as the period of limitation for the purpose as mentioned therein is concerned. Otherwise also, on examination of relevant provision it appears that the provisions of limitation are excluded, it would nonetheless be still open to the court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The refund claim of additional duty due to the exemption flowing out of N/N. 102/2007 has to be filed within one year in view of the subsequent Notification No. 93/2008-Cus which still holds good and also in view of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Commissioner(Appeals) has committed an error while giving an expanded interpretation qua limitation to favour assessee. Refund rejected - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is a prescribed time limit for filing a refund claim of additional duty of Customs as exempted under Notification No. 102/2007. 2. The applicability and interpretation of Notification No. 93/2008 amending Notification No. 102/2007. 3. The relevance of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the period of limitation for refund claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Prescribed Time Limit for Filing Refund Claim: The crux of the matter is whether there is a statutory time limit for filing a refund claim of the special additional duty (SAD) of Customs as exempted under Notification No. 102/2007. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that there was no prescribed period of limitation under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, thus allowing the refund claim. However, the department contested this, arguing that the amended Notification No. 93/2008 introduced a one-year time limit for filing such claims. 2. Applicability and Interpretation of Notification No. 93/2008: Notification No. 93/2008 amended Notification No. 102/2007 by introducing a one-year time limit from the date of payment for filing refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) opined that this amendment, being introduced via a notification rather than a statutory amendment, could not prevail. However, the Tribunal found this interpretation legally erroneous. It emphasized that the amending Notification No. 93/2008 is rooted in statutory authority under Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus holds legal validity. 3. Relevance of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: Section 27 of the Customs Act prescribes a one-year period for filing any refund claims of duty or interest. The Tribunal highlighted that this statutory provision applies universally to all types of duties, including the additional duty of Customs. Therefore, even if Notification No. 93/2008 were disregarded, the one-year limitation period under Section 27 would still apply to refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim of additional duty must be filed within one year, aligning with Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in providing an expanded interpretation favoring the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the department's appeal, rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. [Pronounced in the open Court on 25.10.2018]
|
