2017 (1) TMI 526 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - time limitation - the assessment of Bills of Entry was provisional and the same were finalized on 15.09.2010. Thus, there was no scope or occasion for the appellant to file the refund application before the date of such finalization - Held that - The issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT , wherein it has been held that limitation period in case of provisional assessment must be computed from the date after the finalization of refund claim and longer of two periods i.e. the period specified under section 27 or the Notification dated 01.08.2008 read with Circular No. 23/2010-Cus. dated 29.07.2010 would be applicable for the purpose of computing the limitation period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007.
2. Time limitation for filing refund application in case of provisional assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Suzuki Motorcycles during 2008-2010 and filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on the imported goods under Notification No. 102/07-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The claim was rejected for being filed after the stipulated one-year time frame from the date of duty payment.

2. The appellant argued that due to provisional assessment and pending finalization, the refund application was filed within the time frame as per Circular dated 29.07.2010 by CBEC. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer (India) Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI to support the claim that the time limit for refund application in provisional assessment cases should start from the finalization date.

3. The respondent, however, supported the rejection based on the time limitation issue. The Tribunal examined the relevant notifications and Circulars. Notification No. 102/07-Cus was amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008, specifying a one-year time limit for refund application. Circular No. 23/2010-Cus clarified that the time limit applies regardless of provisional or final assessment.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant filed the refund application before the finalization of assessment, following the Circular's guidelines. Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period in provisional assessment cases should be computed from the finalization date, aligning with the longer of the two periods specified under Section 27 or the relevant notifications and Circulars.

5. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection of the refund claim and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting the consequential benefit of refund. The judgment was pronounced on 05.01.2017.