TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (for short "the CESTAT") in Customs Appeals No. 10546 of 2014 and allied appeals proposing the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty, prescribed under sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended vide notification No. 93/2008-Customs dated 01.08.2008, for filing refund claim, is to be considered from the date of payment of duty or from the date of finalization of assessment in case where assessment is provisional? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT is right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment." 6. The CESTAT by considering the above provisions of Section 27 (1B) (c) of the Act has rightly come to the conclusion that what is the date of payment to be taken when the provisional assessment has been resorted to as prescribed in the aforesaid provisions and relevant Notification has no clause providing otherwise and the CESTAT has therefore rightly interpreted the same as harmoniously with the statutory provisions and came to the conclusion that the Board Circular has ignored this fact. 7. The Tribunal has also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (301) ELT 59 which was followed by the Tribunal in case of SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA P. LT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulated. Notification cannot impose more deleterious terms and reduce the period of limitation for refund of claim. (Sub-section 2A to Section 25 is not applicable) ii. Section 27 of the Act prescribes period of limitation. The period of limitation under the said Section cannot be curtailed by way of a notification but a notification can extend and increase the period of limitation. Similarly, a circular cannot reduce the period of limitation for seeking refund stipulated in Section 27 of the Act. iii. Section 27 applies to all refunds whether due and payable pursuant to appellate orders or court orders or otherwise in terms of exemption notification under Section 25(1) or special orders under Section 25(2) of the Act. iv. The expre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 1 August, 2008 and Section 27 read with Circular dated 29th July, 2010 by holding that an Assessee can make a claim for refund under notification No.93 of 2008 dated 1st August, 2008 either by filing an application for refund within the limitation period specified under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 or within the extended limitation period of one year from the actual date of payment even, if the said payment made was pursuant to provisional assessment. The longer of the two periods i.e. the period specified under Section 27 or the notification dated 1st August, 2008 read with Circular No. 23/2010-Custom dated 29th July, 2010 would be applicable. 39. To sum up: a. where the imported goods are released on payment of CVD on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven by us, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation." 8. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Delhi High Court which is followed by the Tribunal to the effect that the date of making the refund application would be required to be considered from the date of final assessment and not from the date of payment of provisional duty as per the provisions of Section 27 (1B) (c) of the Act and the reliance placed by the Revenue on the interpretations of the impugned Notification No. 93/2008 cannot be applied contrary to the statutory provisions." 5. As the facts of the case are also identical to the effect that the goods falling under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when i....