2017 (3) TMI 404 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Refund claim - SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dt. 14.9.2007 as amended by N/N. 98/2008-Cus. dt. 1.8.2008 - rejection on the ground that refund claim has been filed beyond the prescribed period permitted in the said notification - Held that - Notification says that importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs - There is no provision for condonation of this prescribed period anywhere in the N/N. 102/2007-Cus. or in any of the amendments made thereto. Nor is there any such provision for condonation of delay in filing the refund claim available anywhere in the CEA, 1944 or the Rules made thereunder - Law cannot come to the assistance of the indolent especially when there is no provision for condonation of such delay - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. - Condonation of delay in filing the claim.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for 4% of Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The original authority partially sanctioned the claim but rejected a portion due to filing beyond the prescribed period. The lower appellate authority upheld this decision. The appellant argued that due to floods in Chennai, their office was non-operational, leading to a delay in filing the claim. The appellant sought condonation of the delay based on unforeseen natural calamity. The appellant referenced a decision in support of their argument.

The respondent contended that the impugned order was correct, citing the precedent that the authority must follow the law without the power to relax it. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the limitations on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the Notification required the claim to be filed within one year from the date of payment of the duty, with no provision for condonation of the period. The Tribunal highlighted that no extension was granted for delayed refund filing, unlike for other tax-related matters. The Tribunal emphasized that the law does not support condoning delays without specific provisions. The Tribunal disagreed with the precedent cited by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.