TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Upholds Order Rejecting Refund Claim for SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS</h1> <h3>Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited Versus CC, Hyderabad – Customs</h3> The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) as time-barred ... Refund of SAD - rejection on the ground of SAD - goods in question were imported on 18.12.2013 and sold on 24.12.2013 and the VAT on the goods sold was paid on 16.01.2014. The refund claim was filed on 29.12.2014 - Held that:- On identical issues in the case of Sree Krishna Enterprises [2017 (6) TMI 883 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], this Bench had held that the time limitation specified in Notification No. 102/2007-CUS as amended applies for refund of SAD. The applications for refund were correctly rejected to the extent they were time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:- Appeal against rejection of refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS as time-barred.Analysis:The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a refund claim for SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS as time-barred. The appellants imported goods, paid Customs Duty including SAD, and later submitted a refund claim for SAD, which was rejected as time-barred. The main argument raised was based on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a similar case, where the limitation period was set aside. However, the departmental representative relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, emphasizing that the limitation of time for claiming refund under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS should be strictly construed. The representative also highlighted the principle that exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly in favor of revenue, as established by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had previously ruled in similar cases that the time limitation specified in the notification applies for refund of SAD.The Tribunal considered the arguments and records presented. The key issue was whether the limitation of one year for refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS was applicable. The Tribunal referred to judgments from the High Courts of Delhi and Bombay, which had differing views on the retrospective effect of the limitation period. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Notification No. 102/2007-CUS in its entirety, including the time limitation, based on the principle that applicants have no vested interest in refunds and must adhere to statutory provisions. The Tribunal also noted that similar cases had been decided in favor of revenue based on the time limitation specified in the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim for SAD as time-barred under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. The decision was based on the strict interpretation of the notification and the principle that applicants are bound by statutory provisions regarding refund claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
