Tribunal allows appeal for refund of Special Additional Duty under specific customs notification

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) under a specific customs notification. The Tribunal held that the limitation period for claiming the refund was not applicable as per the original notification and cited judgments by the Delhi High Court to support this position. The appellant was directed to be refunded the SAD amount with interest at 12% per annum, and the refund process was to be completed within 60 days from the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues involved:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs.

Analysis:

The appellant imported goods and paid SAD amounting to Rs.15,37,921, in lieu of sales tax, for which a refund was sought under the relevant notification. The refund claim was rejected as time-barred based on the ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a specific case, which required the claim to be filed within one year from the payment date of SAD. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the limitation period for claiming SAD refund was not prescribed in the original notification and cited judgments by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to support the contention that no time limit could be introduced through subordinate legislation. The appellant emphasized that the right to claim a refund must crystallize before the limitation period starts running. Several cases were cited to establish the consistent application of this principle in similar matters.

The Tribunal found that the issue was settled by the Delhi High Court judgments referenced by the appellant, which held that the limitation period under Section 27 would not automatically apply to refunds under the specific notification in question. The Tribunal also distinguished the Bombay High Court ruling in a previous case and cited its own decision, upheld by the Delhi High Court, to support the appellant's position.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest at 12% per annum, starting from three months after the refund application was filed. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits, and the refund was to be processed within 60 days from the date of the Tribunal's order.

---