AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Customs (Appeals). By the impugned orders, first respondent Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has upheld Order-in-Originals dated 30.09.2015, 27.10.2015, 22.12.2015, 12.11.2015 and 12.11.2015 respectively passed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-Sea). 3. By these Orders-in-Originals, the second respondent Assistant Commissioner of Customs had rejected the refund claims filed by the petitioners for refund of the Special Additional Duty of customs paid by the petitioners at the time of import under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the ground of limitation. 4. Refund claims were filed by the petitioners under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. 5. If the above conditions were satisfied, the jurisdictional customs officer like the second respondent herein was required to sanction the refund to an importer like the petitioners. 6. According to the petitioners, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) raided the business premises of the petitioners and seized all the documents under a mahazer dated 02.07.2013 and therefore the petitioners could not file the refund claims in time, i.e. within one year from the date of payment of the aforesaid duty. 7. It is submitted that after getting copies of the relevant bills of Entry on 14.05.2015 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, they were filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the statue, is bound by the statute and the notifications issued thereunder and therefore will be compelled to disallow the refund claims by upholding the impugned orders as it cannot extend the period of limitation. It is submitted that there is also no hard and fast rule against writ petitions being filed where an alternate remedy exist. 10. The respondents have filed their counter and have stated that the respective Orders-in-Originals passed by the second respondent as affirmed by the first respondent in the respective impugned orders were well reasoned and therefore cannot be disturbed. It is therefore submitted that these writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that petitioners have an alternate remedy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one year from the date of payment of customs duty. 15. The petitioners plead "Lex non-cogit ad impossibilia" in filing of refund claims in time. According to the petitioners, they had to liaison with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to get copies of the Bills of Entries and since the Bills of Entries were not given to the petitioners in time, there was a delay in filing the refund claims. It is therefore submitted that seizure of documents by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cannot be against the petitioners. 16. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that nothing prevented the petitioners from filing the refund claims in time. 17. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) therefore entertaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted goods in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (c) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. 21. Therefore, denial of benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 to the petitioners on the ground of limitation is not justified if the above documents enumerated above were seized by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 22. Copy of Mahazer dated 02.07.2013 of M/s. Kaamda Impex which has been filed indicates that documents were seized. It is not clear whether copies of other writ petitioner M/s.M.M.Enterprises wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h letter dated 14.5.2015 of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence addressed to the second respondent indicates the involvement of the said petitioner also in the alleged evasion of anti-dumping duty and that documents were seized from the premises of the said petitioner also. 26. However, in absence of specific documents to conclude that the import documents and other documents of the said petitioner were also seized or not by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, this Court is unable to form any positive opinion straight away. 27. Therefore, with a view to do substantial justice in the light of letter dated 14.05.2015 of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence addressed to the second respondent, the impugned orde....