9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority has rejected the application for refund on the grounds that the claim made by the respondent, was time-barred, is not as per condition 2(c) of the notification dated 1-8-2008. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), by an Order-in-Original C.Cus II No. 624/2015, dated 30-6-2015, allowed the appeal in favour of the claimant, on the grounds that 10% of the imported goods were released by the claimant only on 4-6-2014, and by that time, the time limit for filing the refund claim was already over and hence, there was no possibility for the respondent/claimant, to file a claim, within the prescribed time limit. It is not in dispute that though the duty was paid on 15-5-2013, on which day, only 90% of the goods we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was rejected by the adjudicating authority, by its Order-in-Original No. 36028 of 2015, dated 20-3-2015, for non-fulfilment of the condition 2(c) of Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 issued by the Revenue Department. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued a Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007, thereby, the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public to do so, exempted certain goods falling within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India for subsequent sale, from the whole of the Additional Duty of Customs leviable thereon under sub-section (5) of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r notification in Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008, thereby, made the following amendments, substituting paragraph 2 clause (c) of the earlier notification dated 14-9-2007 :- 2(c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of the one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs; . 6. The respondent herein, has filed a Claim Application before the Lower Adjudicating Authority, for refund of additional duty of customs, invoking the notification dated 14-9-2007 as amended on 1-8-2008. The said authority, after going through the refund application and perusing the material availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the appellant department would submit that the amendment period of one year from the date of payment of additional duty of customs may be extended till the date of imported goods are released. Learned Counsel for the appellant would also try to substantiate the grounds of appeal by stating that the Appellate Tribunal had miserably failed to appreciate the period of limitation to any such claim for refund of the additional duty of customs paid on certain conditions which came to be exempted under the Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. 10. The respondent herein, has produced two typed set of papers relied by them in support of their contention in the appeal, wherein, Volume I typed set, consists of the Bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods. But, it should have been made before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of additional duty of customs. 13. In the present case, it could be seen that the respondent had filed a Claim Petition on 9-9-2014 for refund of additional duty of customs which was paid on 15-5-2013. In fact, it could be seen from the Order-in-Original dated 20-3-2015, the lower adjudicating authority has observed that 90% of the goods were released on 15-5-2013, whereas, the remaining 10% of the goods were released only on 4-6-2014. The refund application was filed only on 9-9-2014 i.e. after the expiry of one year from the date of payment of additional duty of customs. Thus, the Lower adjudicating authority has rejected the application for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013, on which day, only 90% of the goods were released and however, the remaining 10% of the goods were released only on 4-6-2014. If the Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 is to be strictly applied, then the date on which the remaining 10% of goods released could only be taken as the date commencing for claim of refund and not on the date on which, the duty was paid i.e. on 15-5-2013 as the respondent has no possibility to file the claim unless 100% of goods were released. 16. In view of the above discussions, we are unable to accept the arguments put forth by the Learned Counsel for the appellant department and hence, the order passed by the Commissioner of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
