2019 (3) TMI 1530 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground of time-barred - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. - Held that - The date of filing of application before the Dadri Commissionerate is to be taken for the purpose of computation of refund claim on SAD - Another aspect which is required to be placed on record is inaction of the departmental authorities on the said refund application filed in Dadri Commissionerate, for which five months were unnecessarily wasted and had it been the jurisdictional authority, Government of India would have been burdened with payment of interest on late disposal of the refund claim. No finding is available in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to why such application was forwarded after more than 5 months after payment of SAD has been wrongly made to Dadri authorities and on that count the applicant would suffer the financial loss when the fault lies at the end of the departmental authority in not acting upon properly. The appellant is entitled to get refund of ₹ 12,62,790/- paid on SAD along with applicable interest and the respondent-department is directed to pay the same within three months from the date of communication of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Denial of refund claim on Special Additional Duty (SAD) due to being time-barred as filed before another Customs Commissionerate.

Analysis:
The issue before the Tribunal was the denial of a refund claim on Special Additional Duty (SAD) to the appellant on the grounds of being time-barred, even though it was filed on time but mistakenly before a different Customs Commissionerate. The appellant had filed refund claims against 57 Bills of Entry for a specific period, which were forwarded to the wrong jurisdiction before being redirected to the correct authority. The refund claim was rejected based on the delay in reaching the correct Commissionerate after one year of payment. The appellant contended that the time limit for filing the refund claim was not prescribed under the relevant notification and sought exclusion of time spent in the proceedings before the wrong forum as per the Limitation Act. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their argument.

In response, the department cited decisions emphasizing the strict applicability of the one-year limitation period for refund claims, arguing against interference in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal considered the applicability of the limitation period to the refund application filed in another jurisdiction within the stipulated time but forwarded late to the correct authority. The appellant cited legal precedents supporting the notion that filing before the wrong forum does not render the application void or nonest, especially if made within the limitation period. The Tribunal highlighted the principle of advancing the cause of justice under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which supports excluding time spent in pursuing proceedings in good faith. The delay caused by the department's inaction on the refund application filed in the wrong jurisdiction was also noted, with the Tribunal emphasizing the financial loss to the appellant due to the department's failure to act promptly.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and directing the respondent department to refund the amount paid on SAD along with applicable interest within a specified timeframe. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of the time spent in the wrong jurisdiction and the department's inaction, leading to the appellant's financial loss.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching the decision to allow the appeal and grant the refund claim.