9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1572 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - rejection on the ground that the same has been filed after the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment - time limitation. Whether there is any time limit prescribed by law for filing the refund claim of additional duty of Customs as stands exempted vide the N/N. 102/2007? Held that - No doubt, the said Notification is silent about any time period for filing the said claim. But the Notification exempts the goods in first schedule of Customs Tariff Act from being leviable to the additional duty of Customs. However, the Notification itself mandates the deposit of the said additional duty at the time of importation of the goods and thereafter to get the refund - the amending N/N. 93/2008 is arising out of the statute, i.e. Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962 hence, the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the amendment introducing one year from the date of payment of additional duty as a time to claim the refund thereof is without statutory amendment, is not sustainable rather is opined to be legally erroneous. Otherwise also, the said amendment came into force w.e.f. 01.08.2008 that too in accordance of another statutory provision, i.e. Section 25(4) of the Customs Act. We cannot rule out that the Notification No. 93/2008 came into existence to align the statutory provision with the Notification which was silent as far as the period of limitation for the purpose as mentioned therein is concerned. Otherwise also, on examination of relevant provision it appears that the provisions of limitation are excluded, it would nonetheless be still open to the court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The refund claim of additional duty due to the exemption flowing out of N/N. 102/2007 has to be filed within one year in view of the subsequent Notification No. 93/2008-Cus which still holds good and also in view of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 2. Validity and applicability of the amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the limitation period for refund claims. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Time Limit for Filing a Refund Claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus: The crux of the matter revolves around whether there is a prescribed time limit for filing a refund claim for the special additional duty (SAD) of Customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim of ?38,057 on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit from the date of payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the limitation period should not start before the right to refund accrues and that Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act does not prescribe a specific time limit. 2. Validity and Applicability of the Amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus: The Department argued that Notification No. 93/2008-Cus, which amended Notification No. 102/2007-Cus to introduce a one-year time limit for filing refund claims, is valid and should be applied. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that this amendment could not prevail as it was introduced without a statutory amendment. However, the Tribunal noted that the amending Notification No. 93/2008 arose out of Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were legally erroneous. 3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Regarding the Limitation Period for Refund Claims: The Tribunal emphasized that even if Notification No. 93/2008-Cus is not considered, Section 27 of the Customs Act prescribes a one-year limitation period for claiming any duty refund. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Apex Court, to support the principle that statutory provisions must be strictly followed. It was noted that the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous, and the words of the statute should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim for the additional duty of Customs, as exempted under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, must be filed within one year, in accordance with Notification No. 93/2008-Cus and Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in providing an expanded interpretation of the limitation period to favor the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and rejected the refund claim. [Pronounced in the open Court on 25/10/2018]
|
