2025 (10) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....016. During examination of said refund claim, it was noticed that duty against the impugned Bill of Entry was paid on 11.07.2016 and refund was filed on 26.07.2018, thus the refund was opined to be hit by limitation period as prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. This opinion was communicated to the appellant vide DM dated 06.09.2018 and 20.11.2018. Seeking no response, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original bearing No. 2046 dated 19.02.2019 rejected the said refund claim on ground of limitation. The order got upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 716/2022-23 dated 13.06.2022. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Jitin Singhal, learne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the limitation of one year would not be applicable. 6. The Delhi High Court, on the other hand, in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del.)] examined the provisions of the notification dated 14.09.2007 as also the notification dated 01.08.2008 that amended paragraph 2(c) of the notification dated 14.09.2007 and introduced a time limit of one year. It is on a perusal of the said notification dated 14.09.2007 that the Delhi High Court observed that the importer is required to produce invoices of sale and documents evidencing payment of sales tax/VAT, which would clearly mean that the benefit of the notification can be availed only when the sale of the imported goods is complete; that the intention of the exemption notification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Customs (Import), Mumbai [2019 (4) TMI 142]; (iii) CC, New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) Vs. Nav Bharat Trading Corporation [2018 (12) TMI 1487-CESTAT New Delhi]; (iv) CC, Hyderabad, Vs. Surya Telecom Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 192-CESTAT Hyderabad] 8. Concededly, the decision of this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) covers the controversy whether the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable in case of refund of the SAD. It has been held that the expression "so far as may be" occurring in Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act cannot ipso facto bring in or refer to the period of limitation prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act. It was held that the nature of the duty is unlike t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it found no reasons to differ with the aforesaid view and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 11. But since there had been contradictory decisions also as mentioned above, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ambey Sales Vs. Commissioner of Customs, GRFL, Sahnewal, Ludhiana [2024 (6) TMI 257-CESTAT-Chandigarh-LB]. The Hon'ble Larger Bench held that the limitation of one year for filing a claim for refund of additional duty of customs paid on import of goods from the date of payment of additional duty would, therefore, not be applicable. 12. The reference has been answered by the Larger Bench in the following terms: "The time limit imposed upon an importer for filing a refund claim of additional ....