9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of Customs. It is undisputed fact that the payments for the appellant were made on the provisional basis, but refund of SAD was filed before the finalization of assessment took place, with few exceptions, where again the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of finalization of assessment. This Court finds that the Board Circular as well as the Delhi High Court decision as reported in PIONEER INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANOTHER [ 2013 (9) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was duly considered by the Division Bench of Delhi this Tribunal in M/S. SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS C.C. NEW DELHI (IMPORT GENERAL) [ 2017 (1) TMI 526 - CESTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER SOMESH ARORA The learned Advocate submits that in this matter the refund applications were filed against Bill of Entries, which were assessed provisionally for claiming refund of SAD as per Customs Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14 September, 2007. The applications were filed under this notification after the provisional duty was paid earlier and in some cases final assessment having been done and refunds were claimed as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The department rejected the refund claims on the ground that a clarification was issued by the Board to interpret the notification to mean that refunds should have been filed within one year of payment of duty even if not finally assessed, but paid provisionally. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisional and the same were finalized on 15-9-2010. Thus, there was no scope or occasion for the appellant to file the refund application before the date of such finalization, in terms of Explanation-II appended to Section 27 ibid, providing the time limit of six months for filing refund claim, in case of provisional assessment, from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. However, in view of the Circular dated 29-7-2010 issued by the CBEC, the refund application was filed by the appellant on 9-9-2010 i.e. before finalization of assessment, which was admitted for consideration by the refund sanctioning authority. The refund application was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed after the prescribed time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which limitation has to be reckoned and not final payment of duty then the same needs to be interpreted, in accordance with the Board Circular only. 4. Considered, this Court finds that the Board Circular as well as the Delhi High Court decision as reported in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India-2014 (301) ELT 59 (Delhi High Court) was duly considered by the Division Bench of Delhi this Tribunal in SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA P. LTD VS C.C. (IMPORT GENERAL), NEW DELHI, cited Supra and it was decided in that matter in the similar circumstances, that refund cannot be rejected as time barred and Bench allowed the appeal by remanding the same to adjudicating authority for deciding refund claim if otherwise admissible. This Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
