Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Rainbow Papers Limited

2015 (11) TMI 889 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Refund claim - Notification No. 102-2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Refund of SAD - Held that:- subject refund claim was initially filed on 11.07.2012, which was within the time limit of one year, as specified in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. It is the claim of the Respondent that the said refund claim was taken back by them at the request of Customs officer. However, this fact is not coming out from the records. The claim was resubmitted on 27.05.2013, by which time, the time lim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndustries Limited vs. UOI [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that all claims for refund has to be preferred and adjudicated upon as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, time limit of one year prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 will also be applicable in the instant case. The case law relied upon by the Respondent is not applicable to this case as the facts of this case are different. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed refund claim in pursuance of Notification No. 102-2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 for refund of 4% Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid by them on the goods imported and subsequently sold. The adjudicating authority has held that they had preferred a refund claim of ₹ 8,08,265/- initially filed on 11.07.2012. The said refund claim was withdrawn vide their letter dated 04.09.2012 citing reason that notification issued by DGFT th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

back the said submission either before the original adjudicating authority or thereafter. In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has held that it is a settled principle that the condition of time limit, if prescribed in the notification, has to be strictly adhered to. Further, since there is no provision in the said notification for any relaxation in period of filing the claim, and that they have withdrawn their refund claim by themselves, and later filed the claim on 27.05.2013 by w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eligibility of the refund as under:- 6.5. In other words, if utilisation period is not extended such refund would be rendered infructuous. In that case, the appellant shall be entitled for refund by way of re-credit, subject to the condition that he has not passed on the said duty. Further, there is no order so far utilisation is concerned, as the same shall depend upon the CBEC or DGFT permitting such utilisation, as discussed above. This shall be kept in mind while passing a de-novo order. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing that according to notification issued by DGFT no refund will be claimed against import duty paid by the DEPB Licenses after March 2012. The Respondent filed the refund claim again on 27.05.2013, consequent to the CBEC Circular No. 18/2013 dated 29.04.2013, by which, the time limit for using re-credited DEPB scrips/ Reward Scheme scrips in case of 4% SAD was extended up to 30.09.2013. Further, he submitted the said Circular was only with respect to re-crediting the scrips and not regarding re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nding the matter to lower authority was not sustainable, as the refund claim was clearly hit by limitation and should have been rejected. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that initially the refund claim was filed on 11.07.2012. He submits that the respondent requested to return the refund claim vide letter dated 04.09.2012. He submits that it was done on the instructions of Customs officers. Subsequently, after the issuance of CBEC Circular No. 18/2013-Cus dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of the Customs officers and was subsequently resubmitted as soon as the time limit was extended by the CBEC. Learned Advocate submitted that the relevant date for submission of refund claim should be taken as the initial date of submission of claim i.e. 11.07.2012, which is within the time limit of one year. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi vs. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Limited 2013 (294) ELT 272 (Tri. Del.). 6. On consideration of the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version