TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after "Sony India", wherein it has been held in as under:- "13. Customs duties, properly so charged, are those which every importer knows to be leviable on the importation of goods, of course subject to any exemption which may be provided. The regime under which customs duty can be recovered concerns known events and details. Several contingencies with respect to rate of duty, removal of goods, their warehousing, etc are envisioned in the scheme of the Customs Act. However, in the case of SADC, which is a levy meant to offset any advantage, there is inherent a right to refund, once the importer shows that the goods have been sold or the other taxation incident, i.e. payment of VAT occurs. This duty was imposed as India's response to offset any advantage that importers might secure, by way of a nondiscriminatory levy, by importation of goods at cost or prices lower than what could be obtained by domestic manufacturers. A discriminatory tax could not have been levied, given India's obligations as a participant in the WTO and having regard to its treaty obligations. 14. The expression "so far as may be" in this context, under Section 27 is significant as well as instructive. The lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcement or other officer exercising his power and he will be substituted in place of the Magistrate. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 37 has not been cast in any such language. It merely provides that the search may he carried out according to the method prescribed in Section 165(1)." 16. Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act prescribes a time limit of expiry of "one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest...". Section 27 (1B) lists out three contingencies when the one year limit applies with modified effect. That provision has the effect of shifting the date from which the refund claim is to be reckoned. All that can be inferred from the term "so far as may be" would be that specific provisions relating to the mechanism applicable for refund, in the Customs Act, applied; not the period of limitation. The Customs authorities had never understood Section 27(1) as to mean that a one year period of limitation was applicable. Audioplus (supra) and United Chemicals Industries (supra) are both testimony to this. It is the circulars/notifications of 2008 and No. 16/2009 which for the first time harped on the one year period of limitation. Circular No 6/2008 dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deal with substantive rights, such as imposition of penalties and other provisions that adversely affect statutory rights, the parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations; subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail or be made, in such cases. The imposition of a period of limitation for the first time, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore could not prevail." 4. The said judgment was followed in Pee Gee International versus Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi, 2016 (343) ELT 72 (Delhi). 5. Counsel for the appellant, however, has drawn our attention to the decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs versus Riso India Private Limited, 2016 (333) ELT 33(Delhi) (hereafter "Riso India"), which according to him, takes a different view from the view expressed in Sony India (supra). It is accordingly submitted that limitation period specified under Section 27 of the Act would apply to claims for refund made under the notification of 2007, which had not prescribed a specified period of limitation. 6. We have considered the said contention, but would observe that the decision and ratio of Riso India (supra) is being read out of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be permitted to be filed within the maximum time period of one year. Filing of refund claim for a part quantity in a bill of entry shall not be allowed except when this is necessary at the end of the one year period. Further, since the Sales Tax (ST)/Value Added Tax(VAT) is being paid on periodical or monthly basis, even in case of bills of entry where the entire quantity of goods are sold within a month, all such cases shall be consolidated in angle refund claim and filed with the Customs authorities on a monthly basis. In other words, there would be a single refund claim in respect of one importer in a month irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry (B/Es) processed by the respective Commissionerate. 4.3 With the extension of time limit and the requirement to file claims on a monthly basis, Board feels that the number of refund claims should be manageable for disposal within the normal period of three months. Further, in the absence of specific provision for payment of interest being made applicable under the said notification, the payment of interest does not arise for these claims. However, Board directs that the field formations shall ensure disposal of all such refund c....