TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eu of Sales Tax at the time of import under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Vide Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007, the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 125, had provided for exemption of SAD on all goods when imported for subsequent sale subject to terms and conditions as follows:- 2. The exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the importer of the said goods shall pay all duties, including the said additional duty of customs leviable thereon, as applicable, at the time of importation of the goods; (b) the importer, while issuing the invoice for sale of the said goods, shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be admissible; (c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer; (d) the importer shall pay on sale of the said goods, appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has considered the question of time period of limitation in filing the refund claim, specified in the impugned Notification No. 93/08-Cus, be made applicable with retrospective effect, in absence of the limitation period in the original Notification NO. 102/07-Cus, in respect of goods imported prior to the issue of the impugned notification. The facts in the case of Sony India before Hon'ble High Court were that the appellant had imported some items between 1.12.2007 to 5.12.2007. Vide Notification No. dated 1.8.2008 the time limit of one year was prescribed for refund, from the date of payment. The Hon'ble High Court, taking into account the provisions for payment of additional duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and also the Notification, have observed as follows:- "12. The provisions of the Customs Act on the rules and mechanism for refund is incorporated by reference into the CTA only "so far as may be" applicable Since SADC levied under Section 3(5) is refundable only on subsequent sale (i.e. the point at which sales tax/VAT liability aris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this context, under Section 27 is significant as well as instructive. The levy under Section 3 (5) is conditional upon the Central Government's opinion that it is necessary to "counter-balance the sales tax, value added tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on a like article.."; the rate of duty - where more than one levy exists, would be the highest of such rates and the terms of imposition of SADC would be spelt out in the notification. In this case, the regime existing before the notification of 2008 did not specify any period of limitation - and perhaps advisedly so. Some customs authorities apparently started applying Section 27, drawing inspiration from Section 3(8) which led to confusion. In Notification No.102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007 there was no period of limitation; by Circular No.6/2008-Customs, an amending notification providing for one year period from the date of payment of the additional duty of customs was issued, through Notification No.93/2008-Customs dated 1.8.2008, amending Para 2(c) of the 2007 Notification. The net effect of these was that a one year period was insisted upon for refund applications. That period was calculab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which for the first time harped on the one year period of limitation. Circular No 6/2008 dated 28.4.2008 issued by the CBEC stated that: "4. Time-Limit: "4.1 In the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, dated 14-9-2007, no specific time - limit has been prescribed for filing a refund application. Under the circumstances, a doubt has been expressed that whether the normal time-limit of six months prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act, would apply. In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time-limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification. Further, it was also represented that the goods imported may have to be dispatched for sale to different parts of the country and that the importer may find it difficult to dispose of the imported goods and complete the requisite documentation within the normal period of six months. Taking into account various factors, it has been decided to permit importers to file claims under the above exemption upto a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. Necessary change in the notification is being made so as to inco....