2022 (11) TMI 1014 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - Time limitation - HELD THAT - The very same issue is also covered by another coordinate bench judgment of this court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VERSUS WILHELM TEXTILES INDIA PVT. LTD. 2016 (9) TMI 1370 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that refund should be allowed. The appellant/revenue will accordingly process the application for refund preferred by the respondent as per law having regard to the decision taken in the instant appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of limitation concerning refund sought qua Special Additional Duty (SAD).

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of limitation vis-a-vis the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The appellant sought interim relief in the present matter, highlighting that the same issue was also raised in a previous case. The court noted that in a previous case, the impugned order by the Customs Tribunal was set aside based on precedents from other judgments. The court observed that the issue of limitation in refund cases had been addressed in various judgments, including one from the Supreme Court. The appellant relied on a judgment from the Madras High Court, which had a different view from the Delhi High Court's previous decision. The court analyzed the reasoning provided by the Commissioner of Customs in a previous order and found it flawed, emphasizing that limitation cannot be prescribed by a notification.

Furthermore, the court referred to Circulars and Notifications to explain the historical context of the limitation period for refund claims. The court agreed with the reasoning in a previous judgment, stating that the period of limitation for refund claims could not be introduced through subordinate legislation like notifications. The court dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to process the refund application as per law. It was also mentioned that if an appeal was preferred and tagged with another case pending in the Supreme Court, the final decision would abide by the Supreme Court's ruling in that matter.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issue of limitation in refund cases, considering various precedents and legal interpretations. It emphasized the importance of statutory provisions over subordinate legislation in determining limitation periods for refund claims. The court's decision was based on established legal principles and interpretations from previous judgments, ensuring consistency and adherence to the law.