2023 (12) TMI 1453 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - denial on the ground of limitation - on the date of filing claim the period of limitation had expired - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res-integra and is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of SHIRDI TRADERS Others vs. Commissioner of Customs Jamnagar (Prev.) 2023 (7) TMI 391 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that This Court is inclined to follow the same decision and particularly emphasizes there is no ambiguity as such in the notification as the statutory provision as that contained in Section 27 (1B) (C) is very clear as to what is the date of payment to be reckoned when provisional assessment has been resorted to. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Ahmedabad), presided by Hon'ble Mr. Somesh Arora, addressed an appeal concerning the denial of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on the ground of limitation expiry at the time of claim filing. The appellant relied on the precedent set in SHIRDI TRADERS & Others vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar (Prev.) (Final Order No. A/11365-11375/2023), where similar facts existed, including unsettled assessment of bills of entry, yet the refund claims were allowed.The Tribunal cited para 4 of that decision, emphasizing that the statutory provision under Section 27(1B)(C) clearly defines the date of payment for provisional assessments, and the relevant notification contains "no clause providing otherwise." The Tribunal noted that the Board Circular was "correctly ignored" in SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA P. LTD vs. C.C. (Import & General), where it was held that a refund "cannot be rejected as time barred" under similar circumstances, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on admissibility.The Revenue's representative opposed but deferred to the Court's discretion. Following the binding precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim should not be barred by limitation despite the provisional assessment status at the time of filing.In sum, the Tribunal reaffirmed that under Section 27(1B)(C), the limitation period for refund claims in provisional assessments must be reckoned harmoniously with statutory provisions, and time-barred rejection is impermissible where the assessment remains unfinalized. The appeal was accordingly allowed.