2017 (6) TMI 883 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground that refund claims were filed after the expiry of one year as stipulated in N/N. 102/2007-Cus as amended by N/N. 93/2008-Cus dt. 01/08/2008 - Held that - The clauses of N/N. 93/2008, specifically states that the 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 - the respondent had filed refund claims on 26/03/2014 while the duties were paid in respect of one Bill of Entry on 26/03/2013 and in respect of another on 21/03/2013 - refund rejected. The provisions of the General Clause Act, 1897 does indicate that the day on which the duty has been paid has to be excluded for arriving at the period of one year for filing of the refund claims - in this case, the date of payment of duty i.e. 26/03/2013 has to be excluded for computing the period of one year as per the N/N. 93/2008 Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim based on time limitation under Notification No. 93/2008.
2. Interpretation of the time limitation for filing refund claims under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim based on time limitation under Notification No. 93/2008:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority due to claims being filed after one year, as stipulated in Notification No. 93/2008. The respondents imported goods, paid duties, and filed refund applications after the specified time limit. The first appellate authority set aside the rejection order citing a judgment of the High Court of Delhi. The Tribunal noted that one refund claim was filed after the expiry of one year from payment of duties, as per the notification's requirement. The reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment was deemed inappropriate as it did not address filing refund claims post the issuance of Notification No. 93/2008.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the time limitation for filing refund claims under the General Clauses Act, 1897:
Regarding one Bill of Entry, the Revenue argued that the refund claim should have been filed a day earlier based on the notification's wording. The respondent contended that the day of duty payment should be excluded when calculating the one-year period. The respondent relied on the General Clauses Act, specifically Section 9(1), which excludes the first day when calculating periods. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, citing previous decisions, and emphasized that the date of duty payment should be excluded. The Tribunal highlighted the applicability of the General Clauses Act to Central Acts like the Customs Act and Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the principles of excluding the first day when computing time limits, as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. The appeal was partly allowed and partly rejected based on these considerations.

This judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the rejection of refund claims based on time limitations set by notifications and the interpretation of time limits under the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Tribunal's decision clarifies the exclusion of the day of duty payment when calculating the one-year period for filing refund claims, emphasizing legal principles and previous judgments for its conclusion.