9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1239 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Customs dated 14/09/2007 amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs dated 01/08/2008 - Rejection on the ground that the refund has not been filed within one year of SAD payment - correctness of the order of original Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - 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 - The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while giving an expanded interpretation qua limitation to favour assessee. Refund not allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). 2. Time limit for filing refund claims. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 93/2008. 4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and notifications. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD): The case revolves around a refund claim of 4% SAD levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The respondent filed a refund claim under the Special Refund Mechanism provided by Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, for an amount of ?7,36,824/-. The original adjudicating authority sanctioned ?5,58,584/- but denied ?1,78,240/- as it was barred by time. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, but the department appealed against this decision. 2. Time Limit for Filing Refund Claims: The central issue is whether there is a prescribed time limit for filing a refund claim of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007. The Notification No. 93/2008 amended the original notification to introduce a one-year time limit from the date of payment for filing refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amendment introduced by Notification No. 93/2008 cannot prevail without a statutory amendment. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the amendment is valid as it arises out of the statute, i.e., Section 25(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 93/2008: The Tribunal emphasized that Notification No. 93/2008, which introduced the one-year time limit, is valid and enforceable. The Tribunal noted that the Customs Act itself, under Section 27, prescribes a one-year period for claiming refunds of any duty or interest. Therefore, even if Notification No. 93/2008 did not exist, the one-year limitation period would still apply as per Section 27 of the Customs Act. 4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Notifications: The Tribunal cited various legal precedents to support its interpretation. It referenced the Hon’ble Apex Court's decision in Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, which emphasized that statutory provisions must be strictly construed. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import Mumbai) vs. M/s Dilip Kumar & Co., where the Apex Court held that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted, and if a person does not fall strictly within the letter of the notification, they cannot claim the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim of additional duty due to the exemption under Notification No. 102/2007 must be filed within one year, as per Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in giving an expanded interpretation of the limitation period to favor the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowed the department's appeal, rejecting the refund claim of ?1,78,240/- as it was barred by the one-year time limit. Conclusion: The appeal by the department is allowed, and the refund claim of ?1,78,240/- is rejected as time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized the strict interpretation of statutory provisions and notifications, upholding the one-year limitation period for filing refund claims as prescribed by Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act.
|
