9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1013 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - time bar - delay of one and two days in filing the two bills of entry - whether the refund claims filed by the appellant are barred by limitation of one year from date of payment? - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 9, the date of deposit of duty (SAD) being 26.08.2011 and 25.08.2011. The period of one year shall commence on 27.08.2011 and 26.08.2011 respectively. Accordingly, the one year shall be completed on 27.08.2012 and 26.08.2012. In this fact, the first refund claim since filed on 27.08.2012 is well within 1 year and in respect of second refund claim though the one year is completed on 26.08.2012 but being Sunday the filing of refund on Monday I.e. 27.08.2012 is well within the time limit prescribed in terms of Section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897. As regard the computation of 1 year that from the date of commencement of the year shall complete on the same date in the next year, this has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd 2021 (3) TMI 542 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In view of undisputed settled legal position in terms of General Clauses Act, 1897 read with decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the appellant's both refund claims were filed within the stipulated time period of one year hence the same are not time barred. Appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the refund claims filed by the appellant are barred by limitation of one year from the date of payment. Comprehensive Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Refund Claim Time Bar The appeal was against the rejection of the refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus for imported goods due to a delay in filing. The appellant contended that the claims were filed within one year from the relevant date, citing the General Clauses Act, 1897. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their argument. The Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the finding of the impugned order. Issue 2: Interpretation of General Clauses Act, 1897 The Tribunal considered the details of the refund claims and the dates involved. The appellant argued that as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the filing of the refund claims was within the one-year limitation period. They highlighted the provisions of the Act regarding the commencement and termination of time and the computation of time. The Tribunal analyzed the dates of deposit of duty and the filing of refund claims, concluding that both claims were filed within the stipulated time period of one year and were not time-barred. Conclusion: Based on the interpretation of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal found that the appellant's refund claims were filed within the prescribed time limit of one year. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claims was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Separate Judgment Delivered: No separate judgment was delivered in this case.
|
