9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1260 - HC - CustomsRefund claim - time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty prescribed under N/N. 102/2007-Custom dated 14.09.2007 read with N/N. 93/2008-Customs dated 01.08.2008 - HELD THAT - The CESTAT by considering the provisions of Section 27 (1B) (C) of the Act has rightly come to the conclusion that what is the date of payment to be taken when the provisional assessment has been resorted to as prescribed in the aforesaid provisions and relevant Notification has no clause providing otherwise and the CESTAT has therefore rightly interpreted the same as harmoniously with the statutory provisions and came to the conclusion that the Board Circular has ignored this fact. The Tribunal has also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India 2013 (9) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT which was followed by the Tribunal in case of SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA P. LTD VS C.C., NEW DELHI (IMPORT GENERAL) 2017 (1) TMI 526 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that ' Since the petitioner has filed the claims within the period stipulated by section 27 of the Act, in view of the construction given by us, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation.' Thus, the date of making the refund application would be required to be considered from the date of final assessment and not from the date of payment of provisional duty as per the provisions of Section 27 (1B) (C) of the Act and the reliance placed by the Revenue on the interpretations of the impugned Notification No. 93/2008 cannot be applied contrary to the statutory provisions. Thus, no questions of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal and the Appeal therefore, being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs read with Notification No. 93/2008-Customs. 2. Determination of whether the refund claim filed was time-barred. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs read with Notification No. 93/2008-Customs: The appellant-revenue raised the question of whether the one-year time limit for filing a refund claim should be considered from the date of payment of duty or from the date of finalization of provisional assessment. The Tribunal had held that the refund claim was within the prescribed time limit, interpreting the relevant date to be the date of final assessment, not the date of provisional duty payment. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred by not applying Notification No. 102/2007 read with Notification No. 93/2008, which stipulates a one-year period for filing the refund application from the date of payment of duty. The appellant contended that there is no specific provision under Section 27 of the Act applicable to the said Notification, and thus, the time limit should start from the date of provisional duty payment. The Tribunal, however, relied on Section 27 (1B) (C) of the Customs Act, which states that the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment. The Tribunal also considered the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India, which held that the date of final assessment should be considered for computing the limitation period for refund claims. 2. Determination of whether the refund claim filed was time-barred: The respondent had filed an application for a refund of Rs. 2,46,902/- towards Special Additional Customs Duty (SAD) paid. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred since it was not filed within one year from the date of duty payment. The respondent's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal, stating that the refund claim was within the time limit as prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for the refund claim should be the date of final assessment, not the date of provisional duty payment, aligning with Section 27 (1B) (C) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the statutory provisions under Section 27 (1B) (C) should harmoniously apply with the notification, and the Board Circular suggesting otherwise was correctly ignored. Conclusion: The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that no substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. The Court upheld that the date of making the refund application should be considered from the date of final assessment as per Section 27 (1B) (C) of the Act and not from the date of provisional duty payment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the refund claim was not time-barred.
|
