2019 (3) TMI 1722 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Confirms No Limitation Period for SAD Refund Until Resale and Tax Payment; Revenue's Appeal Dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision that the limitation period for claiming a refund of the ... Refund of SAD - refund was denied on the ground of limitation following the decision in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:-It is matter of legal jurisprudential limitation cannot start forum before a right to claim refund arises or crystallizes - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. have also laid down that prior to the date of sale and payment of VAT, limitation cannot start to run, even if provided wrongly by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in following a ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a specific case.2. Whether the limitation period for claiming refund of SAD applies before the resale of goods and deposit of sales tax.3. Whether the Division Bench of the Tribunal erred in framing a question regarding the time limit for filing a refund claim of additional duty of Customs.Analysis:1. The appeal revolved around the issue of whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in following the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The appellant had imported goods, paid Customs duty including SAD, and subsequently applied for a refund. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that limitation cannot start before the goods are resold and sales tax is deposited, as per the Delhi High Court ruling. The Revenue appealed, citing the dismissal of their appeal by the Supreme Court on the ground of limitation, but leaving the question of law open.2. The issue of the limitation period for claiming refund of SAD was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Revenue argued that the limitation period of one year from the date of payment of SAD, as per amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., should apply. The Tribunal considered the legal aspect of limitation and the requirement for a right to claim refund to arise before limitation can start running. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that limitation cannot start before the right to claim refund crystallizes, as established by the Delhi High Court ruling in Sony India Pvt. Ltd.3. The judgment also addressed the error in the framing of a question by a Division Bench of the Tribunal regarding the time limit for filing a refund claim of additional duty of Customs. The Tribunal clarified that the importer's knowledge of entitlement to file the refund claim at the time of payment of duty distinguishes the case from the precedent set by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that limitation cannot start before the right to claim refund arises, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the decision based on legal jurisprudence and the Delhi High Court ruling.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the issues raised in the appeal, including the application of limitation periods for refund claims and the interpretation of relevant legal precedents.