2017 (5) TMI 687 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - time limit stipulated in N/N. 93/2008 dt. 01/08/2008 - denial of refund claim on account of time bar - Held that - even if a time limit is prescribed by Notification, the same has to be reckoned from the date of payment of duty - In the present case, since the SAD has been paid by the appellant prior to 01/08/2008, there is no hesitation to hold that the refund claims are filed within time - rejection of refund claims is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on time limit stipulated in Notification No.93/2008 - Applicability of time limit to refund claims filed before the amendment - Interpretation of relevant notifications and case laws.

Analysis:
The appellants imported sewing machines between November 2007 and July 2008 and filed refund claims under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Department rejected the claims due to pending finalization of assessments. Subsequently, the appellants sought clarification on filing refund claims after assessment finalization, but no response was received. They filed 4 refund claims initially, which were rejected but later allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The present appeal concerns the rejection of 8 refund claims submitted after the initial allowance, based on the time limit specified in Notification No.93/2008 dated 01/08/2008. The Refund Sanctioning Authority and Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection on the grounds of time bar, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the initial Notification No.102/2007 did not impose a time limit for refund claims, and the subsequent Notification No.93/2008 introduced the one-year limit from the payment date of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). Since the SAD for the 8 refund claims was paid before 01/08/2008, the counsel contended that the time limit amendment should not apply. Reference was made to judgments in Audioplus Vs. CC, Raigad [2011(264) ELT 516 (Tri. Mum.)] and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi [2014(304) ELT 660 (Del.) to support this argument.

The Department's representative supported the rejection based on the time limit set by Notification No.93/2008, emphasizing that the authorities acted correctly in denying the refund claims. Upon hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) noted that the duty (SAD) for the 8 claims was paid before 01/08/2008, rendering the time limit in Notification No.93/2008 inapplicable. The Member emphasized that any time limit prescribed should be calculated from the duty payment date. Citing the case of Audioplus, the Member highlighted that beneficial circulars should apply retrospectively, while oppressive ones apply prospectively. As the duty was paid before the introduction of Notification No.93/2008, the time limit did not bind the appellants. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claims based on time bar was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the applicability of time limits to refund claims filed before relevant amendments, emphasizing the retrospective application of beneficial circulars and the importance of considering the duty payment date for calculating time limits. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of notifications, case laws, and the specific circumstances of the case.