9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 774 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - whether the refund claim of ₹ 19,55,354/- filed under the exemption N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2017 filed on 06.01.2016 for imports made in January 2014 is barred by limitation? - Held that - The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. CMS Info Systems Limited Versus The Union of India & Others 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that the period of one year has been prescribed under said N/N. 102/2007-Cus. as a condition precedent required to be fulfilled for availing exemption. Therefore, filing the refund application filed after one year from the date of import as prescribed under the said Notification is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2017, filed after one year from the date of import, is barred by limitation. Analysis: The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim for 4% SAD paid during import under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. The refund claim was submitted after one year from the date of import, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing rejection based on the limitation prescribed under the said Notification. The appellant argued that the limitation prescribed in the Notification was not applicable, citing a Delhi High Court decision. However, the Revenue contended that the one-year limitation period was a condition precedent for availing the exemption, as per a Bombay High Court judgment. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions and conditions of the Notification and referred to the Delhi and Bombay High Court judgments. It concluded that the limitation period for seeking a refund was valid and necessary, as it was a condition of the exemption granted. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the principles laid down by the Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. The Tribunal highlighted that the Customs Act provisions on refund are incorporated by reference in Section 3(5) of the CTA, applicable to SADC refundable only on subsequent sale. The Tribunal disagreed with the Delhi High Court's view that no limitation period could be imposed for a refund claim, emphasizing that the power to refund is under the Customs Act. It clarified that the exemption granted was conditional, requiring compliance with all conditions, including the limitation period for filing a refund claim within one year from the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal further discussed that the exemption notification's conditions, including the time limit for filing a refund application, were not excessive or arbitrary. It emphasized that compliance with the limitation period was essential as it was part of the statutory scheme. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the limitation was unfair or unreasonable, stating that all conditions of the exemption notification must be adhered to. It concluded that the Central Government's decision on exemptions and conditions, including time limits, should be respected, as both exemption and refund powers derive from the Customs Act, 1962. In light of the principles established by the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to its lack of merit.
|
