2019 (5) TMI 722 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - Refund rejected on the ground that the refund claim was filed after one year from date of payment of Customs (SAD) in terms of amended Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - HELD THAT - If the entire notification is read harmoniously, there are various conditions such as, goods should be sold in the market VAT/ Sale tax should be paid on such sale etc. only thereafter, the appellant is entitled for refund. There is no time limit prescribed that the goods may be sold within one year from the date of payment of excise duty. Even though, the payment of custom duty is made but unless until the goods are sold, the refund does not arise, therefore, in one hand the time limit is prescribed i.e. one year from the date of payment of custom duty and in other hand, assessee is eligible to file refund claim only when the goods are sold and VAT/ Sales Tax was paid. These both conditions are contrary, therefore, considering the overall notification harmoniously, one year should be reckoned from the date of sale of the goods. The refund claim could not have been rejected on time bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 filed beyond one year from the date of payment of custom duty but within one year from the date of sale of the goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim time limit
The appellant filed a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 after one year from the payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) but within one year from the date of sale of goods. The appellant argued that the refund should not have been rejected on time bar as the goods were sold within the stipulated time. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions of the notification, noting that the refund is only applicable after the goods are sold, VAT/Sales Tax is paid, and other conditions are met. The Tribunal held that the time limit should be reckoned from the date of sale of the goods, not the payment of custom duty, as both conditions were contradictory. Various judgments supported this interpretation, such as United Chemicals Industries and Auto Dynamic Corporation.

Issue 2: Contradictory High Court views
In the case of Auto Dynamic Corporation, the Tribunal considered contradictory decisions of High Courts and emphasized that the refund claims were filed within one year from the date of payment of VAT/ST/CST, making them timely. The Tribunal disregarded conflicting High Court views and decided the issue based on facts and law. Similar decisions were made in other cases like Ghaio Mall and Sons and Goyal Impex & Industries Ltd.

Issue 3: Limitation period interpretation
The Tribunal in the case of Prim Tech General Trading Pvt. Ltd. reiterated that the limitation cannot start before the right to claim benefit arises. The Tribunal held that the refund claim made within one year from the date of sale of goods was within the limitation period. This decision was consistent with previous judgments and statutory provisions.

Issue 4: Applicability of statutory provisions
In another judgment concerning Goyal Impex & Industries Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the purpose of imposing SAD to ensure collection of appropriate sales tax or VAT. The Tribunal clarified that the limitation period specified in Section 27 of the Act does not apply to SAD refunds under Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following the decision of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., and allowed the refund claim despite being slightly belated.

In conclusion, the Tribunal consistently ruled in favor of appellants whose refund claims were rejected based on time limitations, emphasizing the importance of meeting conditions under the relevant notifications and statutory provisions. The judgments highlighted the need to consider the date of sale of goods for determining the refund claim's timeliness, ultimately allowing the appeals and granting refunds with interest.