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>Delhi HC Grants Recall of Order on SAD Refund, Citing Precedent in Sony India Case Despite Conflicting Ruling</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs (Import) Versus Om Traders</h3> The Delhi HC granted an application to recall a previous order related to a Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal decision that rejected a ... Refund of SAD - Seeking recall of the order, whereby the present appeal was disposed of in view of the earlier decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Customs v. Kunal Lalani [2022 (4) TMI 270 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- In Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court had held that provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply to Special Additional Duties of customs. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, did not apply to SAD. Appeal dismissed. The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, addressed an application (CM APPL. 21688/2023) seeking to recall an order dated 21.11.2022, which disposed of an appeal based on a previous decision in Pr. Commissioner of Customs v. Kunal Lalani. The application was granted, and the order was recalled due to differences in the legal questions involved.The appellant challenged an order from the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 12.03.2019, which upheld a decision rejecting a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on goods imported under a Bill of Entry dated 04.09.2013. The Deputy Commissioner initially rejected the refund application due to being barred by limitation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, referencing Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, where it was held that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, did not apply to SAD.The CESTAT supported this view, stating that the limitation period cannot commence before the right to claim a refund crystallizes. Despite the Bombay High Court's contrary stance in M/s CSMS Info Systems Ltd. v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court followed its precedent in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the Revenue's appeal as it remains binding on the Bench. The Special Leave Petition against Sony India was dismissed, while another involving similar issues was admitted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
