2018 (10) TMI 334 - HC - Customs

High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision on Customs Refund Claim

The High Court allowed the appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against ... Refund of SAD - Time limitation - N/N. 102 of 2007 as amended by N/N. 93 of 2008 - Whether the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] can be said to be binding precedent in the light of the judgment and other order in M/s. CMS Info Systems Limited v/s. Union of India and Others [2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]? Whether the impugned Judgments of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse as the Appellate Tribunal ignored that the demands subject matter of the Appeals were from the year 2010 onwards? Held that:- This Court, by an order dated 4th October, 2017, set aside the order of the Tribunal in the case of DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. in the facts situation which are identical. It held that the Delhi High Court decision in case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., will not apply as it concerned itself with import of goods prior to the amendment of Notification No.102 of 2007 as amended by Notification No.93 of 2008. Besides, the issue also stands covered in favor of the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CMS Info Systems Ltd. The first question answered in negative i.e. in favor of the Revenue and against the Respondent-Assessee - the second question answered in affirmative i.e. in favor the Revenue and against the Respondent-Asseessee. Issues involved:- Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.- Interpretation of whether a decision of the Delhi High Court can be considered a binding precedent in a specific case.- Examination of whether the impugned judgments of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse due to ignoring the timeline of the demands subject to the appeals.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged an order dated 15th June, 2015, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court admitted the appeal along with another appeal, both raising identical questions of law for consideration.2. The first issue revolved around the binding nature of a decision of the Delhi High Court in a specific case. The High Court examined whether the Delhi High Court's decision could be considered a binding precedent in light of a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a different case. The High Court, in its order dated 4th October, 2018, disposed of one of the appeals by following its decision in a previous case, thereby setting aside the Tribunal's order.3. The second issue involved questioning the validity of the Appellate Tribunal's judgments as being perverse due to overlooking the timeline of the demands under appeal. The High Court found that the impugned order of the Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal regarding the refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs, was not in line with the law. The High Court held that the refund claim for Special Additional Duty could not be granted if not made within one year of payment, post the relevant amendment.4. The High Court found that the facts and law applicable in the case were similar to another case, where the issue had been considered by the Court previously. The Court, by following its earlier decision, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the Respondent-Assessee on both substantial questions of law.5. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the Revenue and against the Respondent-Asseessee. No costs were awarded in the matter.