9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 169 - AT - CustomsRejection of Refund claim time-bar - Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. Ld Held that - the original Notification NO.102/2007-Cus. dt. 14.09.2007 was not having any time limit for filing refund claim and time period of one year from the date of payment of said additional duty of customs was added to the original Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. Amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008 cannot be said to have retrospective effect. Refund claim of additional duty of customs paid on imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer is required to be filed within one year from the date of payment of said additional duty of customs. In the present appeal the dispute is from 25.03.2011 to 18.09.2012 which is after 01.08.2008 when Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008 was issued and operative. Time limit of one year applicable refund claim barred by period of limitation - appeal disposed off decided against appellant.
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008.
Analysis: 1. Issue of rejection of refund claim: The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred under the relevant notifications. The appellant argued citing precedents from Delhi High Court and CESTAT cases that the time limit for filing refund claims was prescribed only after the amendment under Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. The appellant contended that their appeal should be allowed based on these precedents. 2. Interpretation of the law: The Revenue argued that the issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the amendment would have retrospective effect, emphasizing that the period involved in the case was before the amendment date. The Revenue contended that the CESTAT cases did not correctly apply the Delhi High Court's ruling on the matter. 3. Judicial analysis: The Tribunal observed that the original Notification No.102/2007-Cus. did not have a time limit for filing refund claims, and the time period of one year was added through the amendment under Notification No.93/2008-Cus. The Tribunal referred to the question of law addressed by the Delhi High Court, which clarified that the amendment cannot have retrospective effect. The High Court held that the time limit prescribed under the Customs Act cannot be applied to refunds under the original notification. 4. Decision and reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim, stating that the claim was for a period after the amendment in 2008. The appellant failed to file the claim within the prescribed one-year period as per the amended notification, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal differentiated from the CESTAT decisions, emphasizing that the limitation period imposed by the amendment should not be applied retrospectively. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred under the relevant notifications, based on the interpretation of the law and the precedents set by the Delhi High Court.
|
