9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 399 - AT - CustomsRefund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue herein is squarely covered by the rulings of the Hon ble Delhi High Courts SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT , in favour of appellant holding that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under the original notification no. 102/2007-Customs. Further, the ruling of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 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. The appeal is allowed.
Issues involved: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs.
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs. The appellant imported goods for trade and paid a total SAD, which was in lieu of sales tax. After re-sale of the goods, the appellant applied for a refund of SAD, which was rejected on the grounds of limitation following a ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The appellant appealed the decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal, challenging the rejection of the refund claim based on the limitation period. The appellant contended that the issue was no longer res integra, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in similar cases. The appellant argued that there was no specific limitation prescribed under the original notification, and that the limitation for claiming a refund cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification. The appellant relied on various judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court, to support their argument that the time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not be automatically applicable to refunds under Notification No.102/2007-Customs. The appellant requested the appeal to be allowed with consequential benefits. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and found that the issue was covered by the rulings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Courts in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a previous case and upheld a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a related matter. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund along with interest. The Tribunal specified the interest rate and the starting point for calculating interest, as well as the timeline for granting the refund.
|
