2018 (2) TMI 953 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - only reason why the refund claims were rejected by the original authority was that more than on refund claim was filed in a month which is not in conformity with the CBEC circular No.6/2008, according to which the importers are required to file only one consolidated claim per month for refund in terms of N/N. 102/2007 - Held that - since the notification itself does not provide for such a condition that only one refund claim is to be filed within a month, refund is allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claims for 4% SAD paid on imported goods.
2. Delay in filing cross-objections and application for condonation of delay.
3. Interpretation of CBEC circular regarding filing of refund claims.
4. Review of the decision by the Commissioner(Appeals) allowing the refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the rejection of refund claims for 4% SAD paid on imported goods. The respondent imported goods and paid customs duty, including 4% SAD. Two refund claims were filed by the respondent in November 2013 for the SAD paid in two Bills of Entry. The original authority rejected the refunds, but the Commissioner(Appeals) allowed them. The Tribunal found that the refund claims were payable on merit, and the documents submitted were in order. The only reason for rejection was that multiple claims were filed in a month, contrary to a CBEC circular. However, the Tribunal held that the notification itself did not specify such a condition, and therefore upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. The respondent filed cross-objections after a delay of 280 days and applied for condonation of the delay. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons mentioned in the condonation of delay application, condoned the delay and accepted the cross-objections.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the interpretation of the CBEC circular regarding the filing of refund claims. The circular stated that importers should file only one consolidated claim per month for refund. However, since the notification did not explicitly mention such a condition, the Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the refund claims. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, finding no infirmity in the decision.

4. The Tribunal thoroughly reviewed the decision by the Commissioner(Appeals) allowing the refund claims. After perusing the records and finding the documents in order, the Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The cross-objections filed by the respondent were also disposed of in light of the Tribunal's decision.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper interpretation of circulars and notifications in tax matters, emphasizing that conditions not explicitly stated cannot be imposed arbitrarily. It also underscores the significance of ensuring that refund claims are processed based on merit and compliance with relevant regulations.