9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1358 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD paid by them at the time of the import in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 17.09.2007 - Time Limitation - rejection of claim of the appellant only on this ground that the period of one year from the date of the payment of the SAD have not been followed by the appellant - HELD THAT - The matter is no longer resintegra, as the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/S. AMBEY SALES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GRFL, SAHNEWAL, LUDHIANA 2024 (6) TMI 257 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH-LB has decided the issue and it was held that ' The limitation of one year for filing a claim for refund of additional duty of customs paid on import of goods from the date of payment of additional duty would, therefore, not be applicable.' The impugned Orders-In- Appeals are legally not sustainable and are set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 2. Applicability of the one-year limitation period for filing refund claims. 3. Interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and related notifications. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Refund of SAD: The central issue was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of importation under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The appellant argued that they had paid the appropriate Sales Tax/VAT on the imported goods upon their subsequent sale in the open market, thereby fulfilling the conditions for a refund as stipulated in the notification. The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony India, which held that the period of limitation for claiming such a refund begins from the date of sale of the goods, not the date of importation. 2. Applicability of the One-Year Limitation Period: The department contended that the refund claims were filed beyond the stipulated one-year period from the date of payment of duty, as per the amended notification dated 01.08.2008. However, the appellant argued that this limitation should not apply, citing the Delhi High Court's interpretation in Sony India, which stated that the limitation period could not commence before the right to claim a refund had accrued, i.e., upon the sale of goods and payment of VAT/Sales Tax. The Tribunal noted that the matter was no longer res integra, as the Larger Bench had already resolved this issue in favor of the appellant in the case of Ambey Sales. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period should not apply because the right to claim the refund accrues only after the sale of goods, a market-driven event over which the importer has limited control. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions: The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 3(8) of the Tariff Act and Section 27 of the Customs Act. It was highlighted that the provisions of the Customs Act apply to refunds "so far as may be applicable," suggesting that the limitation period under Section 27 does not automatically apply to refunds of SAD. The Delhi High Court in Sony India had concluded that neither Section 27 nor the amended notification could impose a limitation period on the right to claim a refund of SAD, as such a limitation would require legislative action. The Tribunal also considered various judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, which had taken differing views on the applicability of the limitation period. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to follow the Delhi High Court's interpretation in Sony India, which had been consistently upheld in subsequent cases, including Bhimeshwari Overseas and Premier Timber and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the one-year limitation period for filing a refund claim of SAD, as stipulated in the notification dated 01.08.2008, is not applicable. This decision aligns with the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sony India, which clarified that the limitation period cannot commence before the right to claim a refund accrues. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Orders-In-Appeal and allowed the appeals, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the refund of SAD paid at the time of importation.
|
