Limitation for Customs Duty Refund Claim Upheld by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in a judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Poonam A. Bamba, addressed the issue of whether a limitation is prescribed for a refund claim involving Special Additional Customs Duty. The court, relying on previous judgments, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The court emphasized being bound by its own co-ordinate bench's judgment and noted that any future appeal by the appellant/revenue would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether any limitation is prescribed with regard to a refund claim involving Special Additional Customs Duty.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Delhi High Court, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Poonam A. Bamba, revolves around the issue of whether a limitation is prescribed for a refund claim involving Special Additional Customs Duty. The counsel for the parties informed the court about the issue at hand. Mr. S. Sunil, representing the respondent, relied on previous judgments by co-ordinate benches of the court in support of the respondent's position. Specifically, reference was made to the judgment in Sony India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 and another judgment dated 21.09.2016 in CUSAA 25/2016, titled Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Wilhelm Textiles India Private Limited. It was highlighted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in the Sony India case was dismissed by the Supreme Court on grounds of delay, while in the Wilhelm Textiles India case, the SLP was admitted by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, Mr. Sunil pointed out a contrary view taken by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in the judgment of CMS Info systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Ors. 2017. The court acknowledged the submissions made by the parties and noted that it is bound by the judgment of its own co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The court also mentioned that any future appeal by the appellant/revenue would be subject to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. The pending application was closed accordingly.

---