TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal rejects refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported TVs</h1> The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the appellant's refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported Television ... Refund - Bar of limitation - whether the date of actual payment of duty is relevant or the date of banks stamp on the TR 6 challan is relevant for the purpose of deciding the limitation – Held that:- refund having been filed beyond the period of limitation of one year is barred by limitation - As per the provisions of notification No. 6/2008 refund of SAD has to be made within a period of one year from the date of payment of duty - We cannot change the said relevant date prescribed in the notification and cannot step into shoes of legislation – in this case where the duty was deposited on 10.12.07 and 4.12.07 and the bank has wrongly stamped the challans with the date stamp of 14.12.07 and 19.12.07 - duties were actually paid on 10th and 4th December of 2007 – appeal decided against the assessee. Issues Involved:Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import of Television sets; Relevance of the actual date of duty payment versus the date stamped by the bank on TR 6 challans for determining the limitation period for filing a refund claim.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by the appellant during the import of Television sets. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing it as time-barred since the duty was paid on 10.12.07 and 4.12.07, while the refund claim was filed on 12.12.2008, exceeding the one-year limitation period specified in notification No. 6/2008.The appellant argued that based on the bank's stamp on the TR 6 challans, the actual duty payment dates were 14.12.07 and 19.12.07, thereby contending that the refund claim filed on 12.12.08 fell within the one-year limitation period. However, investigations revealed that the bank's stamp dates on the challans were incorrect, and the duties were actually paid on 10.12.2007 and 4.12.2007, leading to the rejection of the refund claims by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).The advocate for the appellant acknowledged the discrepancy in the stamp dates and the actual duty payment dates but argued that due to the high volume of bills of entry handled by the appellant, they relied on the bank's stamp date for filing the refund claim within the one-year period. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative emphasized that the actual duty payment date should dictate the limitation period as per the notification No. 6/08, asserting that the refund claim filed on 12.12.08 was time-barred.The Tribunal deliberated on whether the actual duty payment date or the bank's stamp date on the TR 6 challan should be considered for determining the limitation period. Despite the discrepancy in the stamp dates, it was undisputed that the duties were paid on 10th and 4th December 2007. Upholding the provisions of notification No. 6/2008, which mandates the refund of SAD within one year from the duty payment date, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim filed beyond the one-year limitation period was indeed time-barred. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
