2016 (5) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation - Refund claim - Filed beyond the time limit prescribed as per Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 - Held that - it is observed that the appellant has filed refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 wherein no time has been prescribed for filing refund claim. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim as time-barred is unsustainable and the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on time limitation under Notification No. 93/2008-Cus.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for refund claim filing.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim, which was deemed time-barred under Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. The impugned order stated that the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed one-year limit from the payment of additional duty. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the appeal. Despite the absence of the appellant during the proceedings, the Tribunal proceeded with the case based on the available records. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been listed multiple times previously. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order regarding the time limitation issue.

2. Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.)]. The High Court in this case ruled that Notification No. 93/2008, dated 1-8-2008, was not applicable and could not be enforced through subordinate legislation. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had actually filed the refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, dated 14-9-2007, which did not specify a time limit for filing refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment overturned the rejection of the appellant's refund claim based on time limitation under Notification No. 93/2008-Cus, citing the inapplicability of said notification and the filing of the claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which did not impose a time limit.