2024 (4) TMI 730 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation for filing refund claim of SAD - Period start from the date of payment Or from the date of sale of the goods - HELD THAT - The ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Abhishek Marketing 2024 (3) TMI 1050 - CESTAT KOLKATA wherein the Tribunal has held that the one-year period for filing the refund claim should start from the date of payment of additional customs duty is squarely applicable to the factual matrix of the present appeals. I observe that the judgements of the Hon ble Delhi High Court cited by the appellant pertain to refund claims filed prior to the amendment carried out vide Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. Thus I find that the decisions cited by the appellant are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly I do not see any reasons for interfering with the impugned orders and the same are accordingly upheld. In the result the appeals filed by the appellant stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD)
2. Time-limit for filing the refund application

Summary:

Issue 1: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD)

The appellant contended that the refund of SAD should be granted from the date of sale of the goods, citing the Tribunal's decision in Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The respondent argued that the one-year period for filing the refund claim should start from the date of payment of additional customs duty, as decided in M/s. Abhishek Marketing v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata.

Issue 2: Time-limit for filing the refund application

The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including the Delhi High Court's decision in the Sony India case, which held that the limitation of one year should not apply to SAD refunds. However, the Bombay High Court in CMS Info Systems Ltd. v. Union of India held that the importer has no vested right of refund and must comply with all conditions of the exemption notification, including the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting judgments and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, which emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CMS Info Systems Ltd. is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling and must be followed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal found that the appellant's refund claim was filed after the one-year period prescribed by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. As such, the appellant did not fulfill the mandatory condition for claiming the refund. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant.

Order:

The appeals filed by the appellant stand dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2024)