2019 (12) TMI 132 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - Exemption N/N. 102/2007 dated 14.9.2007 - It is submitted that apparently the refund claim in the present case is beyond one year from the date of payment of SAD - HELD THAT - The SAD is leviable under section 3 (5) of Customs Tariff Act 1975. However, the Department in the year 2007 vide N/N. 102/2007 extended an exemption to said SAD. Vide this notification the goods falling within first schedule to Customs Tariff Act 1975 stands exempted from whole of the additional duty of the customs leviable thereon when imported in India for subsequent sale. Two conditions are prescribed in the notification itself for availing the said exemption. Though this N/N. 102/2007 is silent about any time limit for seeking the refund but in the subsequent amendment thereto vide notification no. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008 the time period for filling the application for refund of said SAD is specified as one year from the date of payment of SAD. This amendment makes it abundantly clear that the imports, post this amendment, have to comply with the condition as that of limitation, as well, while seeking the refund of the duty (SAD) as was paid at the time of import. In view of the entire above discussions it stands clear that the decision of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT is not applicable to the cases of import made after the impugned notification and that to such imports the period of limitation of one year from the date of payment of duty is applicable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under special refund mechanism; Time limit for refund application; Applicability of exemption notification; Interpretation of relevant notifications; Precedents on time-barred refund claims.

Issue 1: Refund claim under special refund mechanism
The case involves an appeal filed by the Department regarding a refund claim of ?1,55,286 under a special refund mechanism provided by Exemption Notification no. 102/2007. The claim pertained to the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid on specific bills of entry. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (A) allowed it, leading to the Department's appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Time limit for refund application
The Department argued that a subsequent amendment in notification no. 93/2008 specified a one-year time limit for seeking a refund on SAD under the exemption provided by notification no. 102/2007. As the refund claim in this case exceeded the one-year limit from the date of SAD payment, the original rejection was justified. The Tribunal examined the timeline for refund applications post-amendment and the implications of the time limit.

Issue 3: Applicability of exemption notification
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of notification no. 102/2007, which exempted certain goods from the additional duty of customs, including the conditions for availing the exemption. While the notification did not explicitly mention a time limit for refund applications, the subsequent amendment in notification no. 93/2008 introduced a one-year deadline for such claims. This raised the question of whether the time limit applied retroactively to imports made before the amendment.

Issue 4: Interpretation of relevant notifications
In interpreting the notifications, the Tribunal considered the impact of the amendment on refund claims and the obligation of importers to adhere to the specified time limit for seeking refunds on SAD payments. The case involved a nuanced analysis of the interplay between the original exemption notification and its subsequent amendment, emphasizing the importance of complying with the revised provisions for refund applications.

Issue 5: Precedents on time-barred refund claims
The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including decisions by the Bombay High Court and previous Tribunal orders, to support its conclusion on the time-barred nature of the refund claim in this case. The analysis highlighted the significance of post-amendment imports in relation to the one-year limitation period for refund applications, distinguishing cases based on the timing of imports vis-à-vis the amendment to the exemption notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Department's appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with the one-year time limit for refund applications post-amendment to the exemption notification. The decision clarified that the time limit applied to imports made after the relevant notification amendment, as supported by legal precedents and the specific provisions of the notifications involved. The judgment underscored the need for importers to adhere to the prescribed timelines for seeking refunds on duty payments to avoid dismissal on grounds of being time-barred.