2019 (4) TMI 492 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.9.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008- CUS dated 01.8.2008 - time limitation - respondent in this case have imported the goods and filed a claim for refund of SAD after a period of one year - Held that - This bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS HYDERABAD VERSUS M/S. SREE KRISHNA ENTERPRISES 2017 (6) TMI 883 - CESTAT HYDERABAD had followed the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CMS Info Systems 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and hold that the limitation of time specified in the notification applies. The impugned order is unsustainable and needs to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import under specific notifications.
- Interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims under the relevant notifications.
- Applicability of judgments by different High Courts on the limitation period for claiming SAD refund.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the issue of whether the respondent was entitled to a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import under specific notifications. SAD was levied to provide a level-playing field for indigenous sellers of goods. The key question was whether the respondent, who filed a refund claim after one year of import, was eligible for the refund as per the conditions set out in the relevant notifications.

2. The first appellate authority held that the limitation of time for filing refund claims should not apply, relying on a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a similar case. The High Court's judgment addressed the retrospective applicability of the limitation imposed in 2008. However, the departmental representative argued that the bills of entry were filed after the amendment in 2008, making the retrospective application irrelevant. The representative cited judgments by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay to support the position that the limitation period specified in the notification must be met for claiming a refund.

3. The respondent argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi should apply, as it interpreted the notification to read down the limitation on the time for claiming the refund. The matter was reported to be before the Supreme Court due to conflicting views by different High Courts on the issue.

4. The bench, after considering arguments from both sides, concluded that the limitation of time specified in the notification should apply. The bench followed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case and set aside the first appellate authority's decision. The bench held that the impugned order was unsustainable and allowed the appeal filed by the revenue.

5. In the final analysis, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period specified in the notification for claiming a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import.