2023 (5) TMI 1089 - AT - Customs

Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection on the ground that the claims should have been filed within one year from the payment of duty, but here the claims were filed after one year - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Applicability of time limit as specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - It is seen that in the absence of section 27 of the Customs Act being made applicable to notification No.102/2007-Customs dated 14.9.2007, the said provisions would not automatically apply to a claim of refund under the notification. On the same lines a clarification has also been given for the payment of interest in the circular. This being so in the absence of section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time limit prescribed in the section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification. It is clear by a plain reading of the amendment that it did not bring about any change in the rate of duty. The amendment tweaked a condition in the original notification to introduce a time limit for filing refunds under the said notification - it is not disputed that the appellants have filed the refund claim after one year of payment of duty. The order-in-original notes the date of filing the refund claim to be 22/01/2009 for 178 Bills of Entry cleared during the period from 01/10/2007 to 31/10/2007. It is also noted that the amending Notification No. 93/2008 is dated and came into effect from 01/08/2008. Hence this is case where the claim has been filed not only one year after the payment of additional duty but also after the amendment came into force bringing in a time limit of one year. In the absence of specific provision of section 27 being made applicable in Notification No.102/2007-Customs dated 14.9.2007 as amended, the time limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the said notification. Further the refund claim in the present case has been filed after the amendment to Notification No.102/2007-Cus. came into force. Conditions of a notification should be strictly construed. This being so, as per sub para (c) of para 2 of the amended notification, which was effective on the date of the appellant filing the claim, the importer should have filed his claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs. This has not been complied with and hence the claim has been correctly rejected by the impugned order. The impugned order is correct and is upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the one-year time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
2. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, to refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of the one-year time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

The appellant, M/s. Ingram Micro India Limited, filed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., which was amended by Notification No. 93/2008 to introduce a one-year time limit for filing refund claims. The claim was filed after one year from the payment of duty and after the amendment came into force. The Tribunal noted that the amendment did not change the rate of duty but introduced a condition for a time limit. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was filed after the amendment and thus was not within the stipulated time limit. The Tribunal upheld the view that conditions of a notification should be strictly construed, and the claim was correctly rejected as time-barred.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, to refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

The Tribunal examined whether the time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, would apply to refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Tribunal referred to Board's Circular No. 6/2008-Customs, which clarified that in the absence of a specific provision in the notification, the time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not automatically apply. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification meant the time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not apply to refunds under the notification.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that the refund claim was correctly rejected as time-barred under the amended notification. The appeal was rejected.