2021 (12) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal allows appeal for refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal against the rejection of a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14th September 2007. ... Rejection of SAD refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment not done - time-limit prescribed in the N/N. 102/2007 dated 14th September 2007 - HELD THAT:- As per the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in PIONEER INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [2013 (9) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the question of payment of duty arises only after finalization of assessment of bill of entry. Admittedly, the refund claim has been filed by the appellant on 4th April 2012 which is well within one year from the date of 27th February 2012 when the bill of entry was still pending for final assessment. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14th September 2007.2. Interpretation of time-limit for filing refund claim.3. Applicability of case laws on time-limit for filing refund claims.4. Final assessment of bill of entry and its impact on refund claim.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14th September 2007, concerning the final assessment of the bill of entry for imported goods.2. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of the time-limit for filing refund claims. The appellant filed the refund claim on 4th April 2012, after the bill of entry was provisionally assessed on 29th March 2011 and not finally assessed until 27th February 2012.3. The appellant relied on the judgment in Pioneer India Electronics (P) Ltd v. Union of India [2014 (301) ELT 59 (Del.)], arguing that the refund application was within the prescribed time limit based on the date of final assessment of the bill of entry.4. The Authorized Representative, however, cited CBEC Circular No. 23/2010-Cus and the case of Commissioner of Customs NS-II v. Purab Textile Pvt Ltd [2019 (365) ELT 285 (Bom.)] to support the position that refund claims must be filed within one year from the date of payment of duty.5. The Tribunal noted that the bill of entry was not finally assessed until 27th February 2012, and the refund claim was filed on 4th April 2012, within one year from the pending final assessment, as per the judgment in Pioneer India Electronics (P) Ltd.6. The Tribunal emphasized that the final assessment is crucial for determining the duty payable, and the refund amount is ascertainable only after final assessment, as explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cited judgment.7. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the refund claim could not be rejected on the grounds of limitation, as it was filed within one year from the pending final assessment of the bill of entry.8. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as deemed necessary based on the findings.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, case law references, and the ultimate decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI regarding the rejection of the refund claim.