9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1326 - AT - CustomsRefund claim filed under Notification No. 102/2007- Cus dated 14.09.2007, in respect of lubricating oil imported by the appellant - rejection on the grounds of limitation - HELD THAT - The matter has been decided earlier in the case of BHARAT SHIP BREAKERS CORPORATION, RISHI SHIP BREAKERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR (PREV.) 2023 (3) TMI 1547 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , wherein it was held that ' In these facts, I find that when the assessment is provisional, it cannot be said that the duty which was paid during the provisional assessment was a final payment of duty. Final payment of duty is confirmed as and when the assessment of Bills of Entry is finalized. Therefore, the date of finalization of bills of entry should be reckoned as the actual date of payment and refund filed within one year from finalization of assessment to be treated as refund claim filed within one year.' Relying on the aforesaid decision, in the case of M/s. Bharat Ship Breaker Corporation, the appeals are allowed.
Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus based on limitation. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the rejection of a refund claim filed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus concerning lubricating oil imported by the appellant. The claim was rejected on grounds of limitation. The appellant argued that the refund claim was within the time limit from the date of finalization of provisional assessment, citing precedents such as M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India P. Ltd and M/s. Bharat Ship Breakers Corporation. The Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. The Member (Technical) carefully considered the submissions and referred to the case of M/s. Bharat Ship Breaker Corporation. The Member observed that in cases of provisional assessment, the finalization of assessment should be considered as the actual date of payment for refund claims. The Circular No. 23/2010-Cus clarified that refund claims must be lodged within one year, regardless of provisional or final assessment. The Member noted that the appellant filed the refund claim before finalization of assessment based on the circular, and thus, the claim should not be time-barred. The Member distinguished other cases cited by the Authorized Representative where there was no provisional assessment involved. Relying on the precedent set by the case of M/s. Bharat Ship Breaker Corporation, the Member set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, stating that the refund claim was within the prescribed time limit under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of considering the finalization of assessment as the date of payment in cases of provisional assessment for refund claims. The decision provides clarity on the time limit for filing refund claims under specific notifications and emphasizes the relevance of applicable precedents in determining the validity of refund claims based on limitation issues.
|
