9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or respondent despite service of notice. 2. The present appeal has been restored to its original number vide the miscellaneous order No. 50070-50071 of 2019 dated 24/01/2019. It is submitted on behalf of the department/ appellant that the present case is the case of refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) leviable under Section 3 (5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The said refund claim was filed under Special Refund Mechanism as is provided under the exemption Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14/09/2007 amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs dated 01/08/2008 for an amount of ₹ 7,36,824/-. The same was partly allowed vide the order-in-original dated 7 June 2017. An amount of ₹ 5,58,584/- was sanctioned, however, amount of ₹ 1,78,240/- was denied to be refunded being barred by time. An appeal thereof was filed being aggrieved of the said rejection. The same was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 806 dated 18/04/2008. Thereafter there has been a review order No. 147 dated 2 May 2018 in furtherance wherein the impugned appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard learned Departmental Representative for the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which would be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs and where such taxes, or, as the case may be, such charges are leviable at different rates the highest such tax or, as the case may be, such charge." It is brought to our notice that the said SAD exemption has been granted vide Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 as issued in accordance of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act which provides power to the Central Government to grant exemption from duty by way of Notification. This Notification exempts the goods falling within the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India for subsequent sale, from the whole of the additional duty of Customs leviable thereupon in accordance of the above mentioned Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act. However, subject to such conditions as mentioned in the Notification itself in para 2 thereof, the first condition reads as follows: (a) The importer of the said goods shall pay all duties including the additional duty of Customs leviable thereon, as applicable at the time of importation of goods. The other relevant condition is: (c) The importer shall file a clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed on 27.03.2017, i.e. much beyond the amended Notification and also the Customs Act itself contains a provision about claim of refund of duty in Section 27 thereof which reads as follows:- (i) Any person claiming refund of any duty or interest, paid by him or borne by him may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of such duty or interest. 8. The words used in the provision makes it clear that statute has not distinguished the nature of duty or interest, the refund whereof is claimed. Hence, even if we do not look into the amended Notification No. 93/2008, the period of limitation as applicable for filing the refund claim under Notification 102/2008 will otherwise be a period of one year in accordance of the aforesaid Section 27 of Customs Act. Thus, we cannot rule out that the Notification No. 93/2008 came into existence to align the statutory provision with the Notification which was silent as far as the period of limitation for the purpose as mentioned therein is concerned. Otherwise also, on exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner and all other forums and modes of seeking said remedy are excluded. Except in the case where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed. Apparently and admittedly none is the fact of the present Appeal. It is also not the case that Notification 93/2008 has been repealed. In absence thereof also, as already discussed above, Section 27 of Customs Act prescribes a period during which refund of any type can be claimed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision Commissioner of Customs (Import Mumbai) Vs. M/s Dilip Kumar & Co. 2018 TIOL 302 (S.C.)-Cus-CB has held that an exemption Notification has to be strictly construed, i.e. if the person claiming exemption does not fall strictly within the letter of Notification, he cannot claim the exemption. The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon its previous decision in the case District Mining Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the Legislature. In Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907, it was held that if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. In view of entire above discussion, we are of the opinion that the refund claim of additional duty due to the exemption flowing out of Notification No. 102/2007 has to be filed within one year in view of the subsequent Notification No. 93/2008-Cus which still holds good and also in view of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. We therefore hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while giving an expanded interpretation qua limitation to favour assessee. We therefore set aside the said Order and allow the present Appeal rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
