9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 191 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - rejection 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 - Whether there is any time limit prescribed by law for filing the refund claim of additional duty of Customs as stands exempted vide the Notification No. 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. Also, the amending Notification No. 93/2008 is arising out of the statute, i.e. Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962 hence, the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the amendment introducing one year from the date of payment of additional duty as a time to claim the refund thereof is without statutory amendment, is not sustainable rather is opined to be legally erroneous. The refund claim of additional duty due to the exemption flowing out of Notification No. 102/2007 has to be filed within one year in view of the subsequent Notification No. 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 appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. 2. Applicability of amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding refund claims. Detailed Analysis: 1. Time Limit for Filing a Refund Claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus: The core issue is whether there is a prescribed time limit for filing a refund claim of special additional duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The assessee filed a refund claim for ?2,87,322/- which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year period prescribed by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, stating that the limitation period should not start 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 Department argued that Notification No. 93/2008-Cus, which introduced a one-year time limit from the date of payment for filing refund claims, is applicable. The Commissioner (Appeals) had based his decision on the case of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation but kept the question of law open. 3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Regarding Refund Claims: The Tribunal examined Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, which allows the Central Government to levy additional duty to counterbalance local taxes. The SAD exemption was granted under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, subject to certain conditions, including the payment of all duties at the time of importation and filing a refund claim with the jurisdictional Customs officer. The Tribunal noted that the amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus, which introduced the one-year time limit, is backed by Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory provision under Section 27 of the Customs Act prescribes a one-year period for claiming any duty refund. It held that the legislative intent is clear and that the refund claim must be filed within one year from the date of payment of the additional duty. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rulings, which underscore the principle that statutory rights must be exercised within the prescribed time frame. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim of additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus must be filed within one year, as stipulated by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the refund by giving an expanded interpretation of the limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and allowed the Department’s appeal, rejecting the refund claim. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 25/10/2018.
|
