2021 (4) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - relevant Time period - time period of one year as provided under Section 27 shall be reckoned from the date of actual payment of SAD or from the finalization of the assessment? - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - HELD THAT - In the present case the facts is not under dispute that the assessee though paid SAD on 18.1.17 but this payment is under the provisional assessment of Bill of Entry . Admittedly the same bill of entry have been finalized on 07.01.17 when the appellant has paid the differential amount of SAD therefore, even though the payment was made on 29.8.13 even the said payment has been finalized with the final assessment of Bill of Entry. Therefore, the date of finalisation of payment should be from the date of finalisation of Bill of Entry i.e. 07.1.17. If this is so, then one year period will start from date of finalization of Bill of Entry which in the present case is 07.1.17. The refund claim was filed on 18.1.17 which is within one year from the date of finalization of Bill of Entry. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PIONEER INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANOTHER 2013 (9) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT considering the same issue held that one year period should be calculated from the date of finalization of the assessment in a case were earlier the bill of entry has been provisionally assessed. On this interpretation the board also issued a circular no. 23/2010-Cus wherein, it was clarified that one year should be taken from the date of actual payment irrespective whether it is provisional assessment or final assessment. However, the Hon ble High Court dealing with the very same circular since concluded that one year should be counted from the date of the final assessment, the said circular was held ultravires and quashed. The limitation of one year has to be reckoned from the date of finalization of Bill of entry. In the present case, the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of finalization therefore, it is not time barred - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of refund claim for SAD paid under Notification 102/2007-Cus and calculation of one-year time period under Section 27 from the date of actual payment of SAD or finalization of assessment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus
The appellant contended that the refund claim for provisional and differential SAD paid is admissible within one year from the finalization of assessment, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PIONEER INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. v. UOI. The appellant argued that the refund claim filed within one year is timely based on the Delhi High Court's decision that quashed the circular specifying the claim should be filed from the date of actual payment of SAD. The tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court held that the one-year period for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of finalization of assessment, as seen in the judgment's excerpts provided.

Issue 2: Calculation of one-year time period under Section 27
The revenue argued that the refund claim should be filed within one year from the actual payment of SAD as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus and subsequent amendments. However, the tribunal observed that in cases of provisional assessment followed by final assessment, the one-year period for filing a refund claim under the notification should be reckoned from the date of finalization of the assessment. The tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision and the reasoning behind the interpretation of the one-year limitation period from the final assessment date rather than the provisional assessment date.

Judicial Interpretation and Conclusion
The tribunal analyzed the conflicting arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties. It emphasized that the one-year limitation for filing a refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus should be calculated from the date of finalization of the assessment, especially in cases involving provisional assessment. The tribunal distinguished the cited judgments by the revenue, noting the absence of provisional assessment issues. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting the one-year limitation period in refund claims contextually, considering the finalization of assessments in cases involving provisional assessments.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's rationale in reaching its decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.