9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 33 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Customs dated 04.09.2007 - bar of time limitation - Held that - the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT , in similar facts held that In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time-limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification - limitation will not applicable for refund of SAD - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred under Notification 93/2008-CUS. - Applicability of limitation period for filing refund claim on SAD paid at the time of importation of goods. - Interpretation of the decision in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. - Challenge of the High Court decision in the Hon’ble Apex Court. - Consideration of the legal provisions and mechanism for refund under the Customs Act. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred under Notification 93/2008-CUS, which imposed a one-year time limit for filing refund claims for duty payments. The appellant, an importer and trader, imported goods, paid duty along with SAD, and later sold the goods in the open market for home consumption, paying VAT/CST. The refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Customs for SAD paid was rejected due to filing beyond the prescribed period, leading to dismissal as time-barred. The appellant contended that the limitation prescribed was not applicable to their case, citing the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi's decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., which held that in certain cases, the limitation is not applicable under Notification 93/2008. The respondent argued that the Apex Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, despite keeping the merits of the issue open. In the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that the Customs Act provisions on refund rules and mechanism are incorporated by reference into the CTA only as applicable. The Court emphasized that no limitation period can be imposed for advancing a refund claim on SADC levied under Section 3(5) until the sale is complete, as the right to claim refund accrues only after the sale. The Court highlighted that the refund provisions under the Customs Act do not apply to duties levied under Section 3(5) of the CTA, and neither Section 27 nor Notification 93/2008-CUS can impose a limitation period on the right to claim refund of additional customs duty paid under Section 3(5). The Court emphasized that legislative action is required to introduce a limitation period for refund claims in such cases. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi's decision clarified that limitation does not apply to the refund of SAD, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The judgment emphasized that the imposition of a limitation period through subordinate legislation, without statutory amendment, could not prevail. Consequently, the refund claim filed by the appellant was deemed not barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the final decision rendered by the tribunal based on the precedents cited.
|
