2018 (4) TMI 783 - AT - Customs

CESTAT dismisses Revenue's appeal on SAD refund limitation, citing Delhi High Court precedent

CC (Export), New Delhi (ICD, TKD) Versus M/s. Daya Enterprises

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the period of ... SAD Refund - N/N. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007 - time limitation - Held that: - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time-limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Applicability of the period of limitation for filing SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The dispute revolved around the applicability of the period of limitation for filing a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) concerning imported goods under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14/09/2007. The Tribunal decided to take up the appeal for final hearing after disposing of the stay application, as both parties consented to it.The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation for filing the refund application had already been addressed in a judgment by the Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal referred to its final order dated 27/12/2017, where it had dismissed a similar appeal by the Revenue based on the Delhi High Court's decision. The Tribunal highlighted a specific paragraph from the order, emphasizing that rejection of a refund on limitation grounds is not legally sustainable. It criticized the Revenue for filing the appeal without appreciating the legal implications and making observations that bordered on contempt of court. The Tribunal emphasized that since the Delhi High Court's decision had not been overruled by a higher court or contradicted by another High Court, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the stay application.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the issue regarding the limitation for filing a SAD refund, as raised in the present dispute, was no longer open for debate. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the stay application accordingly. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing closure to the matter.