New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 889 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (11) TMI 889 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 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 resubmitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries 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 c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3.03.2014, Revenue has filed this appeal. 2. 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 The said refund claim was withdrawn vide their letter dated 04.09.2012 citi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evidence has been adduced by the importer to 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there is no provision in the said notification for any relaxation in period of filing the claim, and that they have withdrawn their refund claim by themselves, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Para 6.5, expressed his views regarding the 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 ke .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rawn by them on their own on 04.09.2012, stating 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore, he contends that the impugned order remanding 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 is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it and the same was taken back at the instance 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 27 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version