2022 (6) TMI 1139 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection on the ground of time limitation - refund claim has been rejected without issuing a Show Cause Notice or without granting an opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - It is clear from the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant has filed the refund claim within the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty, however, before a wrong forum. It is the settled position of law that when a refund claim is filed before a wrong forum, within the statutory time-limit, the date on which the claim was originally filed has to be taken as the date of filing of the refund claim. In the case of SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2016 (8) TMI 1515 - DELHI HIGH COURT a similar issue was considered. It was held that when a refund application is made within the prescribed time-limit before a wrong forum and subsequently filed before the correct authority/forum, the original date of filing of the claim has to be taken for computing the time-limit of one year. The rejection of refund on the ground of time-bar cannot be justified. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim is set aside. However, the matter requires to be remanded to the Original Authority who shall process the refund claim on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on the ground of being time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant imported "computer and accessories" and claimed a refund of SAD. The refund claim was initially filed before the wrong forum but later transferred to the correct authority. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim as time-barred without issuing a Show Cause Notice. The appellant argued that the rejection violated principles of natural justice citing relevant case laws. The appellant contended that the claim was filed within the statutory time limit and should be considered as such. The Commissioner had previously sanctioned refunds in the appellant's favor in similar cases.

The Adjudicating Authority found the claim to be beyond the one-year time limit from the date of payment of duty. However, the Tribunal noted that when a claim is filed before a wrong forum within the time limit, the original filing date should be considered. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that the rejection on the ground of being time-barred was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for processing the refund claim on its merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the rejection of the refund claim based on being time-barred was not justified. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for further processing based on the merits of the claim.