Importer's SAD refund claim remanded for merit-based review after limitation grounds rejection under Notification 93/2008

The CESTAT Mumbai addressed a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by an importer who failed to sell imported goods within one year. The original authority and first appellate authority rejected the application solely on limitation grounds under Notification 93/2008(Cus) without examining eligibility on merit. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for merit-based disposal, noting that the limitation controversy had been resolved by the Tribunal's Larger Bench. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---

---

The core legal question considered in this appeal is the applicability of the one-year limitation period prescribed under Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 1st August 2008, which amended Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14th September 2007, to claims for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. Specifically, whether the statutory bar of limitation applies to refund claims filed beyond one year from the date of payment of SAD, particularly when the imported goods have been sold and the liability for sales tax has been settled subsequently.

Another related issue is the conflict in judicial and tribunal precedents regarding the applicability of this limitation period, including the binding effect of the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and the Bombay High Court's decision in CMS Info Systems Limited v. Union of India & Others.

Additionally, the procedural question arises as to whether the refund claim should have been rejected solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating on the merits of eligibility and entitlement.

Regarding the one-year limitation bar, the relevant legal framework includes Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which provides for refund of SAD paid on imported goods, and its amendment by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus, which introduced a one-year time limit for filing such refund claims under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 27 of the Customs Act, which prescribes limitation periods for refund claims generally, was also considered in various decisions.

The Tribunal referred extensively to the Larger Bench decision in M/s Ambey Sales v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, which addressed the question of whether the one-year limitation period under Notification No. 93/2008 applies to refund claims of SAD paid by importers who have sold the imported goods. The Larger Bench held that the limitation period prescribed in the notification would not apply in light of the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., which held that section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to refund claims of additional duty of customs (SAD) and, consequently, the one-year limitation under the notification is not applicable.

The Tribunal analyzed conflicting decisions, noting that some Division Benches had followed the Delhi High Court's Sony India judgment, while others had distinguished or disregarded it relying on section 27 of the Customs Act or other High Court decisions such as the Bombay High Court's CMS Info Systems case. The Larger Bench concluded that the decisions which disregarded Sony India were not tenable as the Delhi High Court's judgment was binding and had considered the amended notification in detail.

In the present case, the appellant had imported embroidery machines between January 2011 and April 2012, paid SAD on these imports, and subsequently claimed refund in April 2018 after settling sales tax liabilities with the Gujarat tax authorities. The original and first appellate authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation, relying on the Bombay High Court's CMS Info Systems decision.

The Tribunal observed that since the limitation issue has now been conclusively resolved by the Larger Bench in favor of the appellant's position, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claim solely on limitation grounds were unsustainable. Moreover, the authorities had not examined the eligibility or entitlement of the appellant to refund on merits based on the documents furnished under the notification.

Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for adjudication on merits, leaving the appellant's entitlement to refund to be decided afresh in accordance with law and facts.

The Tribunal's reasoning emphasized that a mere bar of limitation cannot be mechanically applied without considering the binding judicial precedents and that the merits of eligibility must be examined once the limitation bar is held inapplicable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the one-year limitation period under Notification No. 93/2008-Cus does not apply to refund claims of SAD paid on imported goods where the importer has sold the goods and settled the sales tax liability subsequently, in line with the binding Delhi High Court decision in Sony India. The rejection of the refund claim on limitation grounds alone was improper, necessitating remand for merit consideration.

Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpt from the Larger Bench decision cited:

"The time limit imposed upon an importer for filing a refund claim of additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of said additional duty of customs in terms of the notification dated 01.08.2008 would not be applicable in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi."

Further, the Tribunal noted:

"The decisions of the Tribunal in JG Impex, Khazana, Hariyana International, Nav Bharat Trading Corporation and Surya Telecom, for the reasons stated above, do not lay down the correct law."

Thus, the core principle established is that the statutory limitation period of one year for refund claims under the amended notification is not applicable to SAD refund claims post-sale of imported goods, where the sales tax liability has been discharged, consistent with the binding Delhi High Court precedent.

On the procedural aspect, the Tribunal's final determination was to set aside the orders rejecting the refund claim on limitation grounds and remand the matter for adjudication on merits, ensuring that eligibility and entitlement are examined in light of the documentary evidence and applicable law.

---