2015 (10) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Goods mis-declared as prime Refund of differential duty demanded Consignment of appellant was stopped by DRI as goods were purportedly mis-declared as Prime and benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was wrongly claimed Appellant were issued show cause notice for claiming wrong exemption and differential duty was demanded Appellant paid differential duty so demanded and thereafter filed application for refund of duty paid Refund amount was partly released against which appellant appealed before commissioner who rejected appeal Held that - Appellant initially filed refund claim for amount however sanctioning authority disposed of refund for partial amount but in respect of balance amount neither rejected nor even disposed of and has not given any findings for this refund Since appellant admittedly filed refund claim for balance amount along with all documents, refund claim was well within stipulated time period of one year and same should not have been rejected on time bar On very same issue Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that in respect duty paid prior to amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. one year period shall not apply Appellant correctly and legally entitled for refund claim Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
2. Time bar and alleged violation of conditions regarding refund claim

Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
The appeal was directed against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 16 lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant had imported "Hot Rolled Non Alloy Steel Plates" and paid custom duty, including SAD. The consignment was stopped by DRI for misdeclaration and wrong exemption claim. The appellant paid the demanded differential duty and filed a refund application under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Dy Commissioner of Customs initially sanctioned a partial refund but rejected a portion of it. The appellant filed a supplementary refund claim for the rejected amount, which was also rejected by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Time bar and alleged violation of conditions regarding refund claim
The appellant argued that the refund claim should not have been rejected on the grounds of time bar or violation of CBEC Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. The appellant had filed a previous refund claim, which included the disputed amount, within the stipulated time. The appellant contended that the one-year limitation imposed by Notification No. 102/2007 was not applicable as the duty was paid before the amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. The appellant cited a Delhi High Court judgment supporting this position. Additionally, it was argued that the second refund claim was not a separate claim but filed on the direction of the refund sanctioning authority. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, holding that the time limit and violation of circular conditions did not apply in this case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities. The decision was based on the finding that the appellant had complied with the necessary procedures and that the time bar and circular violation arguments were not valid in this case. The appellant was deemed legally entitled to the refund claim, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.