9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1487 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - rejection of refund on the ground that the same has been filed after the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment - 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 - The refund in question was filed on 31.03.2017, i.e. much beyond the amended Notification and also the Customs Act itself contains a provision about claim of refund of duty in Section 27 thereof - Apparently and admittedly none is the fact of the present Appeal. It is also not the case that Notification 93/2008 has been repealed. In absence thereof also, Section 27 of Customs Act prescribes a period during which refund of any type can be claimed. 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 - the Commissioner(Appeals) has committed an error while giving an expanded interpretation qua limitation to favour assessee - appeal allowed - Claim of refund rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is a statutory time limit for filing a refund claim of additional duty of Customs under Notification No. 102/2007. 2. Whether the amendment introducing a one-year time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No. 93/2008 is valid and applicable. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Statutory Time Limit for Filing Refund Claim: The primary issue revolves around whether there is any statutory time limit for filing a refund claim of additional duty of Customs as per Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal noted that the said Notification exempts goods from the additional duty of Customs but mandates the deposit of the said duty at the time of importation, followed by a refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer is aware of their entitlement to file the refund claim at the time of paying the additional duty. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the importer should file the refund claim within a reasonable period, aligning with the statutory provision under Section 27 of the Customs Act, which prescribes a one-year period for claiming refunds. 2. Validity and Applicability of Notification No. 93/2008: The Tribunal examined the amendment introduced by Notification No. 93/2008, which imposed a one-year time limit for filing refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that this amendment, being introduced by a Notification without a statutory amendment, could not prevail. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the amending Notification No. 93/2008 arises out of Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, making it a statutory provision. The Tribunal further noted that Section 27 of the Customs Act also prescribes a one-year period for claiming refunds, reinforcing the validity of the one-year time limit introduced by Notification No. 93/2008. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents to support its conclusion, including the Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in cases like Naseeruddin Vs. Sitaram Aggarwal and Titaghur Papermills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, which emphasized that statutory rights must be exercised within the limitations specified by the statute. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import Mumbai) Vs. M/s Dilip Kumar & Co., where it was held that exemption Notifications must be strictly construed. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim of additional duty of Customs due to the exemption under Notification No. 102/2007 must be filed within one year, as per the subsequent Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in giving an expanded interpretation of the limitation period to favor the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the Department's Appeal, rejecting the impugned refund claim. [Pronounced in the open Court on 25/10/2018]
|
