9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 721 - 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 ₹ 12,19,989/- filed pursuant to the exemption N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2017, on 03.08.2016 for imports made and duty paid June 2015 to July 2005 is barred by limitation? - Held that - The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CMS Info Systems Ltd. vs UOI 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT after analyzing the principles and conditions of the Notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 and taking note of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that Merely because a condition is imposed to file a refund application within a stipulated time limit, it cannot be held to be onerous, excessive and, therefore, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed under Notification 102/2007-Cus for an amount of ?12,19,989/- is barred by limitation. Analysis: The appellant filed a refund claim for an amount of ?44,98,444/- under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS for 4% SAD paid during June 2015 to October 2015. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing rejection of a part of the refund claim. The refund was ultimately rejected, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the limitation period should commence from the date of sale of imported goods, referencing a Delhi High Court decision. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that the one-year limitation period under the notification is a condition precedent for availing the exemption, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and the scheme of refund, emphasizing compliance with all conditions of the exemption notification, including the limitation period. The key issue revolved around whether the refund claim was time-barred under Notification 102/2007-CUS. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision, which highlighted the importance of adhering to all conditions of the exemption notification, including the specified time limit for filing refund applications. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's argument that the limitation period should start from the date of subsequent sale of goods, emphasizing that the conditions of the exemption notification must be strictly followed. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the principles established by the Bombay High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit. The judgment emphasized the statutory framework governing refund claims and exemptions under the Customs Act, 1962. It clarified that the power to refund duty is derived from Section 27 of the Customs Act, and any conditions or limitations specified in exemption notifications must be complied with. The Tribunal highlighted that the exemption granted is conditional, and all conditions, including the time limit for filing refund applications, must be met. The judgment underscored the importance of statutory compliance and rejected the appellant's argument that the limitation period was unreasonable or arbitrary. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the conditions of the exemption notification, as elucidated by the Bombay High Court.
|
