9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Refund of SAD paid by the appellant at the time of import of Television sets.
Summary: The present appeal dealt with the refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by the appellant upon importing Television sets. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim as being time-barred since the duty was paid on 10-12-2007 and 4-12-2007, while the refund claim was filed on 12-12-2008, beyond the one-year limitation period specified in Notification No. 6/2008. The appellant argued that based on the bank stamp on the TR-6 challans, the actual payment dates were 14-12-2007 and 19-12-2007, thus falling within the one-year limitation period. However, investigations revealed that the bank stamps on the TR-6 challans were incorrect, and the actual duty payments were made on 10-12-2007 and 4-12-2007. Despite acknowledging this discrepancy, the appellant maintained that they relied on the bank stamp dates for filing the refund claim due to the volume of transactions they handle. The Revenue contended that the actual date of duty payment, not the bank stamp date, should determine the limitation period for the refund claim. As the appellant did not dispute the actual payment dates, they argued that the refund claim filed on 12-12-2008 was time-barred. After considering both arguments, the Tribunal held that the relevant date for determining the limitation period is the actual date of duty payment, as specified in Notification No. 6/2008. Despite the discrepancy in bank stamp dates, the duty was actually paid on 10th and 4th December 2007. Therefore, the refund claim filed beyond the one-year limitation period was deemed time-barred, and the lower authorities' decisions to reject the claim were upheld.
|
