TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Bengaluru Upholds Precedent on Retrospective Application of Time Limits for Refund Claims</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam Versus M/s DOZCO (India) Pvt Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam Versus M/s DOZCO (India) Pvt Ltd - TMI Issues Involved:Whether the time limit for refund claims specified in the amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus can be applied retrospectively to refund claims arising prior to the issuance of the notification.Analysis:The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bengaluru involved the issue of the applicability of the time limit for refund claims under Notification No. 93/2008-Cus to claims arising before the notification's issuance. The appellant argued that the time limit prescribed under the amending notification should be applied to all refund claims, even those arising prior to its effective date of 1.8.2008. The appellant contended that allowing refund claims without any limitation would be untenable. Additionally, the appellant argued that a subsequent amendment should have a retrospective effect in the absence of an express provision. However, the respondent, through their consultant, relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to support their position that the one-year time limit should not be applicable to the refund claims under consideration.The presiding judge, considering the submissions from both sides, found that the issue was conclusively addressed in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The High Court's decision in the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case established that the time limit specified in Notification No. 93/2008-Cus could not be sustained due to the absence of inclusion of refund claims for Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court emphasized that essential legislative policy aspects, such as limitation periods, cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation without a clear mandate in the parent enactment. The High Court's ruling set a precedent that the time limit imposed through a notification, without statutory amendment, could not prevail in matters affecting substantive rights.Given the binding precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the absence of any contrary decisions presented, the Appellate Tribunal rejected all the appeals in line with the established legal interpretation. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding statutory rights and the limitations on introducing significant legal provisions through subordinate legislation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
