2021 (8) TMI 958 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - Appeal found to be filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date - applicability of N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - HELD THAT - In terms of N/N. 102/2017, no doubt utmost requirement is that the refund of SAD will be available only after the imported goods are being sold by the importer with the necessary proofs of the said sale along with certificate of the statutory auditor. The relevant time for seeking refund of SAD is the date when the imported goods have been sold. It is an admitted fact that substantial quantity of imported goods was sold by the appellant in the year 2016 itself under the invoice No. R1/240 dated 22.12.2016. Output VAT on such sale was also charged and was paid vide State Government treasury. The N/N. 102/07 of 14.9.2007 (amended) was very much in existence. Ignorance, thereof is not right to be pleaded by the appellant - There is no sufficient reason quoted for waiting till March, 2018. In the absence of such explanation it is held that limitation mentioned in the amended N/N. 102/2007 is rightly invokable for the impugned refund claim. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim for Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) due to late filing.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed to challenge the rejection of a refund claim for Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid on imported wooden flooring. The appellant imported the goods and paid the SAD, then filed a refund application beyond the one-year period from the relevant date. The claim was rejected, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the time limitation for the refund application was not mentioned in Notification No. 102/2007 and was introduced later through an amendment. Citing precedents, the appellant contended that the limitation period should not apply to SAD refunds. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the precedents cited were not applicable to the current case as the imported goods were sold in 2016. The Department emphasized that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Tribunal analyzed the case and referred to the requirement under Notification No. 102/2017 that the refund of SAD is only available after the imported goods are sold, supported by necessary proofs and a statutory auditor's certificate. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal highlighted that the right to claim a refund arises only after the sale of imported goods, not at the time of duty payment. As the appellant had sold a substantial quantity of goods in 2016 and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the refund claim until 2018, the Tribunal upheld the limitation period prescribed in the amended notification.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no illegality in the rejection of the refund claim and upheld the order, dismissing the appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court on 18.08.2021.