9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1158 - AT - CustomsRefund of Additional Duty of Customs leviable under sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act - the duty was paid on imported goods which were subsequently sold in the domestic market on payment of sales tax/VAT - rejection on the ground of time bar, excess claim and non-production of records - HELD THAT - Delhi High Court in the case of SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time-limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against impugned order rejecting refund claims on grounds of time bar, excess claim, and non-production of records. Interpretation of time limit for filing refund claims under Additional Duty of Customs. Applicability of Notification No.102/2007 and Section 27. Comparison of decisions by different High Courts on refund provisions under Customs Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order rejecting refund claims filed by M/s. Octel Networks Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner(Appeals) had remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider documents submitted by the party and to calculate the time limit for filing the refund from the time of sale of goods, not from the payment of duty. The Department filed appeals against the Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original, leading to multiple legal challenges on the issue of time bar for filing refund claims. 2. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) wrongly relied on Notification No.102/2007 and incorrectly concluded that Section 27 was not applicable. They cited a decision by the Tribunal which was later set aside by the Bombay High Court. The Revenue also mentioned a case by the Bombay High Court and distinguished it from a Delhi High Court judgment. On the other hand, the respondent's consultant referenced a Delhi High Court decision stating that no time limit can be imposed for filing refund claims on the Additional Duty of Customs paid upon subsequent sale of goods. 3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Judicial Member found that the Commissioner(Appeals) had rightly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Member referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that no limitation period can be imposed for refund claims related to the Additional Duty of Customs paid upon subsequent sale of goods. The Member highlighted the market-driven nature of sales and the importer's limited control over when a sale is completed, supporting the view that no time limit should start from the date of duty payment. 4. The Member further discussed the significance of the phrase "so far as may be" in Section 27 and the implications of imposing a limitation period on refund claims for the Additional Duty of Customs. By aligning with the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal in the case of Gulati Sales Corporation, the Member upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Member concluded that the refund provisions under the Customs Act are not applicable to duties levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, emphasizing the need for legislative intervention if a limitation period is to be introduced for such refund claims.
|
