2017 (3) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - additional duty of Customs paid u/s 3(5) of the CTA, 1975 - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - denial on the ground that these claims have been filed in contravention of the restrictive condition laid down by the CBEC vide Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008 - Held that - there is no murmur of any non-compliance of the conditions specified in the said notification - Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008 prescribes that only a single claim against a particular Bill of Entry should be permitted to be filed within the maximum time period of 1 year. From the wordings of the Circular, it is clear that the same has been issued for the convenience of processing of the refund claims on regular periodicity. The Circular, however, does not specify any condition to say that a second refund claim filed in a month would be barred. In any case, it is well settled that the substantial benefit granted by law cannot be taken away by a circular - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007; Rejection of refund claims based on Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008; Interpretation of conditions for filing refund claims; Applicability of Circular on restricting the number of refund claims; Benefit of law versus circular provisions.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi concerned refund claims filed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for additional duty of Customs paid under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Both the authorities below rejected the refund claims citing a restrictive condition from Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008, limiting the filing of only one claim against a particular Bill of Entry within a year. The appellant challenged this rejection, arguing that the notification itself did not impose such restrictions, and the circular should not override the substantive benefit granted by the notification.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the notification allowed for refund claims in certain circumstances, subject to specified conditions. While reviewing the orders of the lower authorities, it was observed that there was no non-compliance with the conditions of the notification by the appellant. However, the refund claims were rejected solely based on the Circular's restriction on the number of claims against a Bill of Entry within a year. The Tribunal emphasized that the Circular was issued for administrative convenience and did not expressly prohibit filing multiple claims in a month, highlighting that a circular should not negate the substantive benefit conferred by law.

In support of the appellant's argument, the Tribunal referred to previous cases where similar objections by the Revenue were overruled, allowing refund claims under the same exemption notification. Citing the case of Devki Nandan (J) Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai and Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Vs. KVN Impex Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that procedural requirements should not impede the legitimate claims of the assessee when the statutory time limit for filing refund claims is specified. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claims was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of upholding substantive benefits granted by law over procedural requirements outlined in administrative circulars, especially when such circulars do not expressly prohibit certain actions. The judgment underscored the need to ensure that legitimate claims are not unjustly denied due to procedural technicalities that do not align with the statutory framework.