Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURTRefund claim - Anti-dumping duty under protest - Bar of limitation - Held that:- since the goods imported in this case are of the same description – which has not been denied by the Customs authorities – no anti-dumping duty can be levied. Thus, in terms of Section 9A which states that “refund shall be made of so much of the anti-dumping duty which has been collected as in excess of the anti-dumping duty as so reduced”, the CC(A) held that the duty paid was liable to be refunded even though the original assessment order was not challenged - duty became refundable as a consequence of the order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Relaxo Rubber and Anr. [2006 (3) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT] - The refund application, therefore, must be filed by the assessee within one year from the date of the order in Relaxo Rubber, i.e. March 8, 2006.The refund application having been made on July 24, 2006 was thus made within the limitation period. Whether the 2009 Amendment of Section 9A(8) (Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009) has retrospective application w.e.f. 1st January, 1995, thus causing Section 27 of the Customs Act to apply over and above Sections 9A and 9AA of the CTA. - Held that:- The ruling in Sneh Enterprises (2006 (9) TMI 179 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is of no consequences to the question before this Court - Section 27 of the Customs Act is to be incorporated through this provision, as regards refund claims w.e.f. 1st Jan 1995, only “as far as may be” applicable, i.e. as far as is not covered by Sections 9A and 9AA of the CTA. As concluded earlier, since Section 9AA of the CTA is a complete code, Section 9A(8) has extremely restricted application in its allusion to provisions of the Customs Act, “so far as may be” in their application to the CTA itself - Decided against Revenue.
|