2024 (3) TMI 1050 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - time limitation - rejection on the ground that the claim was filed after more than one year from the date of payment of CVD - HELD THAT - The Delhi High Court judgments in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VERSUS GULATI SALES CORPORATION 2017 (11) TMI 1300 - DELHI HIGH COURT are in respect of refund claims filed prior to the amendment carried out vide Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 1.8.2008. On the other hand, in the case of TRANASIA BIO-MEDICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (SEA) , CHENNAI 2019 (9) TMI 1563 - CESTAT CHENNAI the period involved is December 2015 to April, 2016. Further, in this case the Tribunal has extensively cited the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The Tribunal has also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY ORS. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that if the assessee wishes to avail any exemption Notification, all the conditions set therein have to be fully complied with. In the present case, both the Bombay High Court judgment and Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dilip Kumar would be squarely applicable. If the appellant wishes to claim the refund of CVD, he is required to fulfill the condition of filing the refund claim within one year which is a mandatory condition under Notification No. 93/2008. Therefore, following the ratio of Tranasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. Case law, the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim of CVD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus.
2. Applicability of the limitation period for refund claims.
3. Interpretation of exemption notifications and conditions therein.

Summary:

Refund Claim of CVD:
The appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 2,89,878/- for imports under 4 Bills of Entry from December 2015 to April 2016, invoking Notification No. 102/2007-Cus as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. The refund claim, filed on 07.04.2018, was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of being filed beyond the one-year limitation period. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Applicability of Limitation Period:
The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court judgments in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Gulatisales Corporation and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, which held that the limitation period introduced by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus could not be applied retrospectively to goods imported before the amendment. Conversely, the respondent cited judgments from the Bombay High Court and Chennai Tribunal, including M.S. Metals Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna and CMS Info System Limited Vs. UOI, which upheld the one-year limitation period for refund claims under the amended notification.

Interpretation of Exemption Notifications:
The Tribunal noted the conflicting interpretations between the Delhi and Bombay High Courts. The Delhi High Court took a liberal approach, emphasizing the purpose of the SAD refund to provide a level playing field for imported and domestic goods. It ruled that the one-year limitation should not apply to SAD refunds. In contrast, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar adopted a strict interpretation, asserting that all conditions of an exemption notification, including the time limit, must be strictly complied with.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal followed the strict interpretation approach as mandated by the Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar's case, emphasizing that exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly, and any benefit of doubt must favor the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim filed beyond the one-year period, affirming the lower authorities' decision.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, requiring strict compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification, including the one-year limitation period for filing refund claims.