9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1083 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - rejection of refund claim for the reason that the claims were filed beyond one year from the date of payment of duty and hence were time-barred as per condition 2 (c) of the notification - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals), by the impugned orders, allowed appeals of the respondent relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT in which the it was held that the notification must be read down insofar as it places the restriction of one year for filing the refund claim. Revenue filed these appeals on the ground that in another case of Wilhem Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 1370 - DELHI HIGH COURT , involving the same issue, Revenue s appeal to Delhi High Court on the same issue was dismissed and Revenue s SLP against the dismissal by the Delhi High Court has been admitted by the Supreme Court. Therefore, according the Revenue, Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in observing the judicial discipline and following the ratio of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court and should have defied Delhi High Court while passing the impugned order. We are surprised as to how the Committee of two Commissioners has not only concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have to follow judicial discipline but have gone further to say that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in following the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court. The prayer before us is to hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in following judicial discipline and that he should have not followed the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court because in some other case, on the same issue in which also the High Court dismissed the Revenue s appeal, an SLP has been admitted by the Supreme Court. The submissions of Revenue in this appeal that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have not followed the binding ruling of the jurisdictional High Court can only result in considerable harassment to the assessee-public through needless litigation without any benefit to the Revenue. Both these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 2. Judicial discipline and adherence to binding precedents. Summary: 1. Time-barred Refund Claims: Goods imported into India are subject to various duties, including Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 allows for a refund of SAD if the importer sells the goods and pays VAT on them, provided the claim is filed within one year from the date of payment of the said duty. In appeal no. C/52190/2018, the respondent's claim for a refund of Rs. 2,10,632/- was partially rejected (Rs. 1,53,507/-) by the Assistant Commissioner as time-barred. Similarly, in appeal no. C/52192/2018, a refund claim of Rs. 22,631/- was also rejected on the same grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondent's appeals, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del.)], which held that the one-year limitation period imposed by the amending notification must be read down. 2. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Binding Precedents: The Revenue's appeal argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in following the Delhi High Court's judgment in Sony India, suggesting that the Commissioner should have defied the High Court's binding precedent due to a pending SLP in another case (Wilhem Textiles India Pvt. Ltd.). The Tribunal strongly criticized this argument, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline. It cited the Supreme Court's decision in UNION OF INDIA vs. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD [1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)], which mandates that revenue officers must unreservedly follow the decisions of higher appellate authorities. The Tribunal noted that failure to adhere to this principle results in undue harassment to the assessee and chaos in tax administration. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reiterating the necessity of following judicial discipline and binding precedents.
|
