9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 205 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - time limitation - allegation that the application for refund was filed after one year from the date of payment of SAD, i.e. beyond the limitation in the notification - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - HELD THAT - An order accordingly has already been passed in respect of the same appellant in the case of CC, HYDERABAD CUSTOMS VERSUS KHAZANA 2019 (4) TMI 492 - CESTAT HYDERABAD . It has been held that, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the appellant ( the respondent in that case) was not entitled to refund of SAD where claims were filed after the period of one year stipulated in the notification. It has been held that any exemption notification must be construed strictly against the person who is claiming the benefit of the notification. As a view has already been taken by this Bench in respect of same appellant for different period, there are no reason to deviate from such a decision - refund cannot be allowed - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus filed beyond the one-year limitation period. 2. Interpretation of exemption notifications for claiming refunds. 3. Applicability of judgments by different High Courts and the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. Issue 1: Refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus: The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the refund of SAD amounting to ?1,08,859.50 under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The appellants imported furniture, paid customs duty including SAD at 4%, and subsequently sold the goods within India, seeking a refund after one year from the date of payment of SAD, which exceeded the limitation period in the notification. Issue 2: Interpretation of exemption notifications: The SAD of customs is levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act to provide a level playing field between domestic manufacturers and importers. The exemption notification for claiming refunds, as per the judgments of different High Courts, must be strictly followed, including the condition that refund claims must be filed within one year from the date of payment of SAD. The High Courts have interpreted the notification liberally and strictly, leading to conflicting judgments. Issue 3: Applicability of judgments by different High Courts and the Constitutional Bench: The Hon'ble High Courts of Delhi and Bombay had differing views on the interpretation of exemption notifications and the time limit for filing refund claims. The matter was referred to a Five-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, which held that exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly, with the burden of proving applicability on the assessee. The judgments by different High Courts and the Constitutional Bench have established the need for strict interpretation of exemption notifications for claiming refunds. In conclusion, the appeal was rejected, upholding the impugned order based on the strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the limitation period for filing refund claims as established by various judicial fora and the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court.
|
