9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 280 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Refund of SAD - section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - denial on the premise that the identity of the goods had been changed on account of slicing of the timber into pieces - HELD THAT - All questions raised before this court, including the aspect of limitation, can be raised before the departmental appellate authority. When the statute provides for an efficacious alternative remedy in a given case, then such remedy has to be exhausted first before taking recourse to any other remedy - This is not the case where alternative remedy shall not operate as a bar as none of the contingencies, namely (i) violation of the principles of natural justice (ii) enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act, has been challenged. Hence, it would be appropriate that the petitioner avails the alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order by filing appeal before the departmental appellate authority - Petition is disposed off with the direction that petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order-in-original dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Office of respondent No.3 before the concerned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within a period of Two Weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007Cus. dated 14.09.2007 regarding exemption from Special Additional Duties (SAD). 3. Rejection of refund claim based on the period of limitation. 4. Challenge of show-cause notice regarding change in identity of goods. 5. Applicability of section 27 of the Customs Act for refund claims. 6. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a writ petition despite alternative remedies available. Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: The petitioner filed a refund claim of &8377; 1,55,56,142 based on exemption under Notification No.102/2007Cus. dated 14.09.2007 for SAD paid during timber importation. The claim was rejected by respondent No.3 under section 27 of the Act due to being filed beyond one year from duty payment. Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007Cus. dated 14.09.2007: The petitioner contended that after selling imported timber pieces and paying VAT, they applied for SAD refund. However, the claim was denied by respondent No.3 citing late filing. The petitioner argued that the interpretation of the notification was incorrect. Issue 3: Rejection of refund claim based on the period of limitation: The petitioner approached the High Court directly, fearing adverse interpretation of the limitation period by the authority. The petitioner argued that the date of judgment by the Supreme Court should be considered for filing the refund claim, not the date of actual judgment communication. Issue 4: Challenge of show-cause notice regarding change in identity of goods: A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging a change in goods' identity due to timber slicing. The petitioner challenged this notice before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) unsuccessfully, leading to further appeals and court challenges. Issue 5: Applicability of section 27 of the Customs Act for refund claims: Section 27 of the Act governs refund claims, specifying the time limits and conditions. The petitioner argued that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment in their favor, not from the original duty payment date. Issue 6: Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a writ petition despite alternative remedies available: The High Court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies and directed the petitioner to appeal the impugned order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within two weeks. The Court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise. This detailed analysis covers the key issues and legal aspects addressed in the judgment delivered by the High Court.
|
