9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 885 - HC - CustomsTime Limitation - Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) - HELD THAT - The issue stands decided 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 - With the introduction of the circular and then amended notification (No. 93), the Customs authorities started insisting that such limitation period which was prescribed w.e.f. 01.08.2008 by notification became applicable. The impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside - Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Application of limitation vis-Ã -vis refund sought qua Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). Analysis: The High Court addressed the issue concerning the application of limitation regarding a refund sought for Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). The respondent/revenue, represented by Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, cited previous judgments by the court, including those in Sony India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, and Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. These judgments were followed and applied in subsequent cases, establishing a legal precedent. The court noted that the authorities below attempted to distinguish the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. judgment based on the period involved and amendments to relevant notifications, but the court found this reasoning flawed. The court emphasized that limitation cannot be prescribed by a notification and cited relevant provisions of the Customs Act in support of this position. The court referenced Circular No. 6/2008 and Notification No. 93/2008, which introduced a one-year limitation period for filing refund claims. However, the court highlighted that this limitation period was not originally part of the statute and was introduced through circulars and notifications, which, in the court's view, could not prevail over the statutory provisions. The court agreed with the interpretation in the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case, which clarified that the imposition of a limitation period through a notification without statutory amendment was not valid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondent to process the refund application in accordance with the decision in the present appeal. The court concluded by stating that if the respondent/revenue chooses to appeal and have it tagged with the Wilhelm Textiles case, the final decision will abide by the Supreme Court's ruling in that appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the above findings and directions, providing clarity on the application of limitation in refund cases related to Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD).
|
