2023 (3) TMI 382 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - rejection of refund claims on the ground of limitation, following the ruling of Bombay High Court in the case of M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT holding that the refund claim had to be filed within a period of one year from the date of payment of SAD. HELD THAT - The issue herein is squarely covered by the rulings of the Hon ble Delhi High Courts cited above, in favour of appellant. Further, the ruling of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in M/s. CMS Info Systems Ltd. has been distinguished by this Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI VERSUS S.R. TRADERS 2020 (12) TMI 503 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , which judgement has been upheld by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS S.R. TRADERS 2022 (4) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund along with interest @ 12% p.a., starting from the end of 3 months from the date of filing of refund application - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under the relevant notifications
The appellant imported goods for trade and claimed refund of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Customs. The refund claims were filed on specific dates and were adjudicated, with the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the claims as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the limitation period following a ruling of the Bombay High Court. The appellant argued that the limitation period was not prescribed in the original notification and cited judgments by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court supporting their position. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled by the Delhi High Court judgments, ruling in favor of the appellant and distinguishing the Bombay High Court ruling in a separate case.

Issue 2: Interpretation of limitation period for refund claims
The appellant's counsel argued that the limitation period cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification and cannot start before the right to claim refund crystallizes. They relied on various judgments, including those by the Delhi High Court, to support their contention. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the limitation period prescribed in Section 27 would not automatically apply to refunds under the notification in question. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest and consequential benefits within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and directing the grant of refund with interest. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting limitation periods for refund claims in line with the specific provisions of relevant notifications and legal precedents established by higher courts.