9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 767 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - Rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - Division Bench of this Tribunal also in the case of Gulati Sales Corporation 2017 (11) TMI 1300 - DELHI HIGH COURT relied upon the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT and has held that the limitation of one year as prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act is not applicable - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) amount. 2. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act to refund cases. 3. Time limitation for filing refund claims. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order allowing the refund of the SAD amount to the assessee. The assessee had imported 'Dried Raw Cashew' and paid Customs duty, including SAD. The refund claim was rejected as being hit by limitation, but the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the lower authority to refund the SAD amount. The Revenue challenged this decision. Issue 2: The Revenue argued that Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable to cases of SAD refund, contrary to the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. They cited various judgments, including the Bombay High Court case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals, to support their position. Issue 3: The respondent-assessee contended that the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. established that SAD is refundable only on subsequent sale, and no time limit can be imposed for filing refund claims. They also referred to the Delhi Tribunal's decision in Gulati Sales Corporation, which upheld the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal considered these arguments, along with the decisions of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, and upheld the order allowing the refund claim, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that no limitation period can be imposed for claiming the refund of SAD, as established in the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case and subsequent related judgments.
|
