2013 (11) TMI 1016 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds One-Year Time Limit for Refund Claims, Emphasizing Procedural Compliance

The Tribunal upheld the strict application of the one-year time limit prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for filing refund claims, rejecting the ... Refund of SAD - period of limitation of one year in case of provisional assessment of BE - Import of LDPE granules under different Bills of Entries - Refund claim for Special Additional Duty of customs - Held that:- Refund of SAD is to be made in accordance with provisions in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The provision under Section 27 of the Customs Act cannot be read into the provision made in Notification No 102/2007-Cus - Claim rejected as time barred - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Refund claim for Special Additional Duty of customs paid under various Bills of Entries.2. Applicability of time limit for filing refund claim as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.3. Provisional assessment and its impact on the time limit for filing refund claim.Analysis:1. The appellant imported LDPE granules under different Bills of Entries, with specific focus on Bill of Entry No. 1764/GEN dated 30-9-2009. The customs department enhanced the value of goods imported under this bill, leading to a challenge by the appellant. A favorable order was obtained in January 2010, resulting in a settled refund. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed for Special Additional Duty of customs paid under all Bills of Entries, citing Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The claim was rejected due to being filed more than one year after the duty payment, as required by the notification.2. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the time limit condition within Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for filing refund claims. The appellant argued that the one-year limit should commence from the date of the final order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the provisional assessment. Conversely, the Revenue contended that the time limit is absolute and not subject to the finalization of assessments, emphasizing the self-contained procedure outlined in the notification. The Revenue's position was supported by the assertion that the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, concerning relevant dates and unjust enrichment, do not apply to such refund claims.3. The Tribunal deliberated on the applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act to the refund process governed by Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Emphasizing the need to adhere strictly to the notification's provisions, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument regarding the provisional nature of assessments impacting the time limit for filing refund claims. The Tribunal concluded that the one-year time limit specified in the notification must be adhered to without considering the provisional assessment status of the bills of entry. Consequently, the refund claim was deemed time-barred and rejected, affirming the Revenue's stance on the matter.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the strict application of the time limit prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus for filing refund claims, dismissing the appellant's plea based on the provisional assessment status of the bills of entry. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with specific procedural requirements outlined in notifications governing refund processes, distinct from general statutory provisions under the Customs Act.