9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 258 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - rejection on the ground of Time limitation - N/N. 102/07-Cus, dt.14.09.2007 - whether refund of 4% SAD paid at the time of import of CBU cars on 25.10.2007 is barred by limitation when the refund claim was filed on 05.11.2008 under Notification No.102/2007Cus. Dt.14.9.2007? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that prior to the amending Notification No.93/2008-Cus dt.01.08.2008, no time limit has been stipulated under the base of Notification No.102/07-Cus. dt.14.9.2007 for filing of refund claim of 4% SAD paid at the time of import. It is the contention of the Appellant that since at the time of import, there is no condition in the notification specifying time limit to file refund claim, accordingly, the period of one year introduced subsequently by Notification No.93/08-Cus, dt.01.08.2008 cannot be made applicable to the refund claim filed on 05.11.2008. A simple reading of the aforesaid ratio makes it crystal clear that the period of limitation even if specifically not mentioned under the Notification No.102/07-Cus. dt.14.9.2007, before its amendment by the amending Notification No. 93/08-Cus, dt.01.08.2008, all refund of customs duty being governed by Sec.27 of Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the time limit of one year from the date of payment of 4% SAD would be applicable - In the present case, since the refund claim filed by the Appellant on 05.11.2008 i.e. after one year from the payment of 4% SAD on 25.10.2007, is barred by limitation. Since, it is held that the refund is barred by limitation and hence not admissible, consequently other issues raised became academic and hence not considered - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Change of cause title. 2. Refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD). 3. Applicability of time limit for refund claims under Notification No. 102/07-Cus. 4. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Jurisdictional High Court's binding precedent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Change of Cause Title: The Miscellaneous Application was filed to change the cause title from "M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd." to "M/s Honda Cars India Ltd." due to a fresh certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies. The Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the change of cause title was allowed. 2. Refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD): The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.153/MCH/DC/Refund (Exp.)/2011, dated 22.07.2011, which rejected the refund claim of 4% SAD paid at the time of import of Completely Built Units (CBU) cars. The appellants argued that they paid the applicable duty including 4% SAD on 25.10.2007 and filed for a refund on 05.11.2008 under Notification No. 102/07-Cus, which initially did not prescribe any time limit for filing such claims. 3. Applicability of Time Limit for Refund Claims under Notification No. 102/07-Cus: The appellants contended that the time limit of one year for filing a refund claim introduced by Notification No. 93/08-Cus on 01.08.2008 should not apply retrospectively to imports made before this amendment. They relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, which held that the amending notification could not be applied retrospectively. The Revenue, however, argued that the period of limitation for refund claims is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was always in force. 4. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Revenue emphasized that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for refund claims, applies to all customs duty refunds, including SAD. The Bombay High Court in CMS Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. upheld this view, stating that even if the original notification did not specify a time limit, the statutory limitation under Section 27 would still apply. 5. Jurisdictional High Court's Binding Precedent: The Tribunal noted that in cases of conflicting views from different High Courts, the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court (Bombay High Court in this case) is binding. The Bombay High Court's decision in CMS Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., which upheld the applicability of the one-year limitation period under Section 27 to refund claims, was deemed binding on the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim filed on 05.11.2008, after one year from the payment of 4% SAD on 25.10.2007, was barred by limitation. The principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in CMS Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. and followed in DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. was applicable and binding. As the refund was barred by limitation, other issues raised were considered academic and not addressed. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 24/10/2019.
|
