2021 (10) TMI 772 - AT - Customs

Applicability of precedent judgements - Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground of time limitation - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007 - HELD THAT - Learned Representatives fairly agree that the issue in appeal is subject-matter of difference of opinion by Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Courts and that we do not have the benefit of guidance by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. There can be no dispute on the proposition that irrespective of whether or not the judgments of Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Courts are binding on me, these judgments deserve utmost respect which implies that, at the minimum, these judgments are to be considered reasonable interpretations of the related legal and factual situation. Doctrine of precedence only mandates that it is the ratio in the decision of higher courts to be followed, and not conclusions - when there is a reasonable interpretation of a legal and factual situation, which is favourable to the assessee, such an interpretation is to be adopted. The denial of refund is bad in law and hence not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dealt with the issue of the eligibility of the appellant for a refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim as time-barred, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim, arguing that there was no statutory limitation for claiming the refund of SAD, and any time restriction imposed later was legally invalid. The Revenue, represented by Shri P. Gopakumar, supported the lower authorities' findings and cited a Chandigarh Bench order referring a related matter to a Larger Bench.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal, represented by Shri P Dinesha, Judicial Member, concluded that the appellant was correct in claiming the refund of 4% SAD based on established legal positions. The Tribunal acknowledged the existence of conflicting judgments by non-jurisdictional High Courts on the issue, emphasizing the importance of respecting such judgments as reasonable interpretations of the law.

The Tribunal highlighted the doctrine of precedence, stating that while higher courts' ratios must be followed, conclusions may vary. It emphasized the need to adopt interpretations favorable to the assessee when reasonable, citing Supreme Court principles that favor the taxpayer in cases of ambiguity in tax provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal held the denial of the refund as legally unsound and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per law.

In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of respecting judicial precedents, especially when conflicting judgments exist, and upheld the principle of interpreting tax provisions in favor of the assessee when multiple reasonable constructions are possible.