2016 (3) TMI 191 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund - Period of limitation - Whether to be applied or not when Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007 grants refund of the additional duty of customs to counterbalance the sufferings of the importer - Held that limitation shall be examined at the time of examination of the result of the enquiry. Denial of refund - Subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the Notification - Sale through consignment agent - Held that the original authority is directed to cause enquiry whether the consignment agent has sold the goods of the appellant through the invoices concerned. If so, the appellant cannot be denied of the refund subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the Notification. - Matter remanded back to complete re-adjudication

Summary

Issues:
1. Issuance of manual and computerized invoices for the same transaction.
2. Question of limitation for refund of additional duty of customs.
3. Dispute regarding sale through consignment agent.

Analysis:

1. Issuance of Invoices:
The appellant argued that issuing both manual and computerized invoices for the same transaction did not prejudice the Revenue. However, the reason for such dual issuance remained unexplained. The Tribunal directed Revenue to conduct an inquiry to determine why both types of invoices were issued and to inform the appellant of the findings to resolve the controversy arising from the adjudication order.

2. Question of Limitation:
The appellant contended that the issue of limitation should not be raised, citing Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007, which allows a refund of additional duty of customs to counterbalance importer sufferings without any provision for questioning limitation. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. On the other hand, Revenue argued for the application of limitation based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Riso India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal decided to examine the appellant's arguments on limitation during the inquiry's result examination.

3. Sale through Consignment Agent:
Regarding the dispute over the sale through a consignment agent, the original authority was directed to investigate whether the consignment agent had indeed sold the appellant's goods through the invoices in question. If confirmed, the appellant should not be denied a refund, provided the conditions of the Notification are met. The appeal was remanded to the original authority for expedited re-adjudication, ensuring the appellant is given a fair hearing opportunity.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised by the parties and the Tribunal's directions for further inquiry and resolution.