9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1316 - HC - CustomsApplicability of time period to claim refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on goods imported in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. - HELD THAT - This Court has in a number of matters dismissed the appeals filed by the Customs Authorities in view of the decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In Commissioner of Customs v. S.R. Traders 2022 (4) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs would be binding on other benches of this Court. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS PANVI TRADING CO. 2022 (12) TMI 1473 - DELHI HIGH COURT this Court had taken note of the aforementioned decision and found no reason to differ with the aforesaid view. The present appeal is required to meet a similar fate - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application seeking recall of an order passed by the Court. 2. Comparison of issues involved in the present appeal with other petitions. 3. Applicability of time period to claim refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). 4. Interpretation of the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 for SAD refund claims. 5. Dismissal of the appeal based on previous judgments and decisions. Issue 1: Application seeking recall of an order passed by the Court The appellant filed an application seeking the recall of an order dated 21.11.2022, passed by the Court at the instance of the appellant's counsel who appeared on that date. The Court considered the submissions made and recalled the order, restoring the appeal to the position as it was on 21.11.2022. Issue 2: Comparison of issues involved in the present appeal with other petitions The appellant argued that the issue in the present appeal was similar to other petitions, including CUSAA 20/21. However, the Court noted that the issues in the present appeal were not similar to those in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Kunal Lalani, leading to the order dated 21.11.2022 being recalled. Issue 3: Applicability of time period to claim refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) The principal issue in the appeal was the applicability of the time period to claim a refund of the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on imported goods under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. The respondent had appealed the rejection of the refund by the Adjudicating Authority, and subsequent decisions were made at various levels. Issue 4: Interpretation of the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 for SAD refund claims The Court considered the interpretation of the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 for SAD refund claims. Previous decisions, including Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, were referenced to determine the sustainability of rejecting SAD refunds based on limitations. Issue 5: Dismissal of the appeal based on previous judgments and decisions The Court highlighted previous judgments where appeals filed by Customs Authorities were dismissed based on the decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs. The Court observed consistency in dismissing such appeals and found no reason to differ with the established view, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal based on the established legal principles and judgments, emphasizing the consistency in decisions related to SAD refund claims and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
|
