2018 (10) TMI 668 - AT - Customs

Refund of additional duty of custom/SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007 - denial on the ground of time limitation - Held that - As per the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007 as amended vide Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dt. 01.08.2008, additional duty of customs is exempted if the goods are imported for the subsequent sale - the appellants have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of subsequent sale. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT , wherein it has been held that the time limitation of one year specified under the above Notification shall not apply until and unless the basic provisions of Section 27 of the Act dealing with refunds are made applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on the grounds of time bar under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being time-barred under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The case involved importers of specific yarn who filed a refund claim for additional custom duty paid, which was partially allowed and partially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The rejection was based on exceeding the limitation period of one year. The appellants contended that the rejection lacked a show cause notice and was against judicial precedent and principles of natural justice. They argued that the duty was exempted under relevant notifications and that the refund claim was filed within one year of subsequent sale, citing a High Court decision to support their position.

The Assistant Commissioner defended the rejection, citing Section 27 of the Act requiring refunds to be filed within one year of duty payment. He relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the time limitation aspect. After considering both parties' submissions and the legal provisions, the Member (Judicial) found that the duty was indeed exempted under the notifications for goods imported for subsequent sale. The refund claim was filed within the one-year period from the date of subsequent sale, aligning with the High Court decision's interpretation. The Member emphasized the High Court's stance that a limitation period imposed through notification without statutory amendment cannot prevail in matters affecting substantive rights. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting consequential relief if applicable.