2022 (6) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty of Customs levied under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The claim was originally rejected by an Order-in- Original dated 17.11.2015 for non-submission of required documents and on limitation ground. On appeal, the appellate authority, by an order-in-appeal dated 06.04.2016, set aside the order-in-original dated 17.11.2015 and directed the adjudicating authority to pass orders afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent/assessee. Pursuant to the order of remand, the adjudicating authority took up the refund application and passed an order-in-original dated 14.07.2016, sanctioning refund of Rs.25,57,262/- in respect of all the Bills of Entry, except two Bills of Entry dated 05.11.2013 and 29.10.2013 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Laboratories Limited v. UOI [2011 (273) ELT (3)(SC)], has to be kept in mind. Accordingly, by order dated 14.10.2016, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent / assessee and directed the adjudicating authority to process the claim in respect of two Bills of Entry and pay interest on the delayed refund in terms of section 27A of the Customs Act. 4.Challenging the order-in-appeal dated 14.10.2016 of the Appellate Authority, the appellant / revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the revenue, it was contended that the grant of interest on the belated refund of SAD is illegal. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, inasmuch as the said issue is covered by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....round that the said application was filed after the expiry of one year from the date of payment of duty. However, the said order-in-original was set aside by the appellate authority, on the premise that the right to refund arises from the date of sale of the goods and therefore, limitation shall start from the date of sale of the goods and not from the date on which SAD has been paid, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Sony India Pvt. Ltd case (supra). The Appellate Authority further held that the respondent / assessee was also entitled for interest on SAD refund beyond a period of three months from the date of filing, in the light of the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Riso India P.Ltd case (supra). Accordingly, ....