9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expiry of one year from the date of payment of duty. However, the said order-in-original was set aside by the appellate authority, on the premise that the right to refund arises from the date of sale of the goods and therefore, limitation shall start from the date of sale of the goods and not from the date on which SAD has been paid, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . The appellant submitted that the issue involved herein has already been decided by the Bombay High Court in M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , wherein, after considering the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panel Counsel For the Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the Final Order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2.Originally, the respondent / assessee had filed a claim application for refund of 4% additional duty of Customs levied under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The claim was originally rejected by an Order-in- Original dated 17.11.2015 for non-submission of required documents and on limitation ground. On appeal, the appellate authority, by an order-in-appeal dated 06.04.2016, set aside the order-in-original dated 17.11.2015 and directed the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D) refund beyond a period of three months from the date of filing, the Appellate Authority, following the order of the Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s.Riso India P. Limited [2016 (333) RLT 33 (Delhi)] , held that the assessee was entitled to get the interest and for computing the period of interest, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. UOI [2011 (273) ELT (3)(SC)] , has to be kept in mind. Accordingly, by order dated 14.10.2016, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent / assessee and directed the adjudicating authority to process the claim in respect of two Bills of Entry and pay interest on the delayed refund in terms of section 27A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable to the facts of the case? 7.From the pleadings as narrated above, it is to be recollected that the claim for refund of SAD duty made by the respondent / assessee, in respect of two Bills of Entry dated 05.11.2013 and 29.10.2013, was rejected, by the adjudicating authority, by order-in-original dated 14.07.2016 on the ground that the said application was filed after the expiry of one year from the date of payment of duty. However, the said order-in-original was set aside by the appellate authority, on the premise that the right to refund arises from the date of sale of the goods and therefore, limitation shall start from the date of sale of the goods and not from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically held that the period of limitation as mentioned in the notification dated 14th September, 2007 as amended by the notification dated 1st August 2008 will operate with all the force and therefore, refund will be governed by the limitation as prescribed in the notification . The learned counsel further submitted that though the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Sony India Ltd's case was challenged by the Revenue by filing Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP on the ground of limitation, but kept the substantial question of law open and hence, the ruling of the Delhi High Court did not attain finality. It is also fairly brought to the notice of this court that the aforesaid decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
