2025 (6) TMI 1900 - HC - Customs

Time limitation for filing refund claim - relevant date for calculation of time limit of one year - time limit of one year to be considered from the date of payment of duty or from the date of finalisation of assessment in case where the assessment is provisional - HELD THAT - The observations of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India 2013 (9) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT completely agreed upon which is followed by the Tribunal in case of SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA P. LTD VS C.C. NEW DELHI (IMPORT GENERAL) 2017 (1) TMI 526 - CESTAT NEW DELHI 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. No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal and the Appeal therefore being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court arise under the Customs Act, 1962, specifically relating to the time limit for filing refund claims of Special Additional Customs Duty (SACD) paid on imported goods. The principal issues examined were:

(i) Whether the one-year limitation period for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, runs from the date of payment of duty or from the date of finalization of assessment when the assessment is provisional.

(ii) Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) erred in allowing the refund claim filed beyond one year from the date of payment of duty.

The legal framework centers on the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 27(1B)(c), which governs limitation periods for refund claims where duty is paid provisionally under Section 18 of the Act. The relevant Notifications-No. 102/2007 and its amendment No. 93/2008-stipulate a one-year period for filing refund claims from the date of payment of duty. The interplay between these notifications and the statutory provisions was pivotal.

Regarding the first issue, the Court analyzed Section 27(1B)(c), which explicitly states that where duty is paid provisionally, the one-year limitation period is computed from the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment or reassessment. The Court emphasized that the notification does not contain any clause overriding this statutory provision. Therefore, the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of final assessment, not the provisional payment date.

The CESTAT's reasoning aligned with this interpretation, relying on the principle of harmonious construction between the statutory provisions and the notifications. The Tribunal also disregarded a Board Circular that suggested otherwise, holding that the Circular was correctly ignored in light of the statutory clarity.

In support of this interpretation, the Court referred extensively to the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, which dealt with a similar controversy. The Delhi High Court held that:

• Notifications cannot curtail the limitation period prescribed by the Act; they can only extend it.
• Section 27 prescribes the limitation period for all refund claims, including those arising from appellate or court orders.
• The expression "date of payment" in the notification should be read in harmony with Explanation II to Section 27, meaning the date of final assessment in cases of provisional assessment.
• The Board Circular attempting to fix the limitation period from the date of provisional payment was held unsustainable insofar as it conflicted with the statutory provisions.
• Refund claims filed within the longer of the two periods-either the statutory limitation under Section 27 or the notification period from the date of provisional payment-should be entertained.

The Court also noted that the appellant-revenue's reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Commissioner v. Dilipkumar and Company, which mandates strict interpretation of exemption notifications favoring the Revenue, did not override the clear statutory provision in Section 27(1B)(c). Since the statutory provision explicitly governs limitation in provisional assessment cases, the notification cannot be interpreted to shorten this period.

Regarding the second issue, the Court found no error in the CESTAT's allowance of the refund claim despite it being filed beyond one year from the date of provisional payment. The Tribunal correctly applied the limitation period from the date of final assessment, consistent with the statutory mandate and judicial precedents.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the refund claim was time-barred, holding that the limitation period must be computed from the date of final assessment, and since the claim was filed within that period, it was valid.

The Court's conclusions were as follows:

• The limitation period for refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008, must be read in conjunction with Section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, which prescribes that in provisional assessment cases, the one-year limitation runs from the date of final assessment.
• The CESTAT correctly interpreted the law and notifications harmoniously, and its reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics was appropriate.
• The Board Circular suggesting the limitation period runs from the date of provisional payment was rightly disregarded.
• The refund claim filed by the respondent within one year from the date of final assessment was not time-barred.
• No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order warranting interference.

Significant holdings include the Court's verbatim adoption of the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd, particularly the following passage:

"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... The expression date of payment used in notification No. 93 of 2008 dated 1st August, 2008 can mean the date of final assessment. The said interpretation would be in accordance and as per explanation II to Section 27... In view of the construction given by us to the circular hereinabove, the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner of the High Court of Madras... need not be referred to... Since the petitioner has filed the claims within the period stipulated by section 27 of the Act, in view of the construction given by us, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation."

This principle establishes that statutory limitation provisions prevail over notifications and circulars when there is a conflict, and that in provisional assessment cases, limitation runs from the date of final assessment.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the CESTAT's order allowing the refund claim filed beyond one year from the date of provisional payment but within one year from the date of final assessment, thereby upholding the primacy of Section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act in determining limitation periods for refund claims under provisional assessments.