2018 (10) TMI 1484 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - time limitation - sub-section 5 of Section 3 of Custom Tariff Act, 1975 - rejection of claim on the ground that the same has been filed after the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment and as such is rejected as being barred by time - Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Whether there is any time limit prescribed by law for filing the refund claim of additional duty of Customs as stands exempted vide the N/N. 102/2007? Held that - No doubt, the said Notification is silent about any time period for filing the said claim. But the Notification exempts the goods in first schedule of Customs Tariff Act from being leviable to the additional duty of Customs. However, the Notification itself mandates the deposit of the said additional duty at the time of importation of the goods and thereafter to get the refund. From this perusal, one thing becomes abundantly clear that the importer has the knowledge of his entitlement to file the refund of additional duty of Customs at the time of the payment of said duty itself i.e. at the time, the product being in first schedule (under the exempted category) is imported - for claiming the refund of additional duty nothing else has to happen or to be done by the asseesse after the payment of said additional duty of Customs. The refund claim of additional duty due to the exemption flowing out of N/N. 102/2007 has to be filed within one year in view of the subsequent N/N. 93/2008-Cus which still holds good and also in view of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
2. Applicability of amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus.
3. Compliance with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Interpretation of exemption notifications and statutory provisions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus:
The primary issue revolves around the time limit for filing refund claims under the exemption Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The assessee filed a refund claim for the special additional duty of Customs (SAD) amounting to ?2,02,592/-. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim as it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment, as per the amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund by holding that the limitation period should not commence before the right to refund accrues and that no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act.

2. Applicability of amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus:
The amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus introduced a time limit of one year from the date of payment for filing refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment is statutory and arises from Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view legally erroneous, stating that the amendment must be adhered to, and the refund claim should be filed within one year from the date of payment.

3. Compliance with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, prescribes a one-year time limit for claiming refunds of any duty or interest. The Tribunal noted that the statute does not distinguish the nature of duty or interest for refund claims. Therefore, even without considering the amended Notification No. 93/2008, the period of limitation for filing refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007 would be one year as per Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that legislative intent and statutory provisions must be respected, and the period of limitation cannot be extended by invoking other provisions.

4. Interpretation of exemption notifications and statutory provisions:
The Tribunal cited several judgments to support its interpretation of exemption notifications and statutory provisions. It highlighted that exemption notifications must be strictly construed, and if the claimant does not fall strictly within the letter of the notification, they cannot claim the exemption. The Tribunal referred to the Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions, which underscored that statutory rights must be exercised within the specified time and manner provided by the statute. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim must be filed within one year as per the amended Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in giving an expanded interpretation of the limitation period to favor the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowed the Department's appeal, rejecting the impugned refund claim. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and time limits prescribed by law for refund claims.