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 Allows Refund Claim, Rejects Time Bar</h1> The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision to reject a refund claim as time-barred, citing Circulars and Notifications. Relying on the Audioplus ... Refund claim of Additional duty of Customs - Refund claim of SAD - Limitation - The appellants paid the duty when the Notification 93/2008 dated 1-8-2008 was not in operation - Therefore, the payment of duty in this case is not bound by Notification 93/2008 as the Notification came into force only on 1-8-2008 - Any payment of duty made after 1-8-2008, refund of the same shall be entitled, if the same is filed within one year but the duty is payable pursuant to Notification 102/2007 dated 14th September ‘07 prior to 1-8-2008, the limitation period is not applicable in the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. Decisions of the Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, [2007 -TMI - 1061 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], and AUDIOPLUS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), RAIGAD [2010 (11) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ] - It was held that beneficial circular to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular applicable prospectively - Thus, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant holding time bar, is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Refund claim rejection based on time-barred submission.Analysis:The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim citing Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. and 16/2009-Cus., stating that the refund claims were time-barred. The appellant fulfilled conditions under Notification No. 102/2007 for exemption of Additional duty of Customs. The Circular No. 6/2008 clarified that a one-year time limit from the date of duty payment was permissible for filing refund claims. This was further reinforced by Notification No. 93/2008, which laid down the one-year limitation period. The appellant contended that the time limit was not applicable as per the earlier Notification No. 102/2007 clarified by the Board. The Tribunal's decision in Audioplus v. Commissioner of Customs supported this argument, emphasizing the retrospective application of beneficial circulars. The Tribunal held that the limitation period introduced from 1-8-2008 did not apply to refund claims for duties paid before that date. As the appellant met all other conditions, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.This judgment clarifies the application of time limits for filing refund claims under Customs notifications. It highlights the importance of considering the specific provisions of relevant notifications and circulars in determining the applicability of limitation periods. The decision in Audioplus case sets a precedent for the retrospective application of beneficial circulars, emphasizing the need to analyze the timeline of duty payments concerning the introduction of new limitation periods. The judgment ensures a fair and consistent approach in addressing refund claims, balancing the interests of importers with the regulatory framework governing customs duties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
