TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been extended under any law, rules or notification. Therefore, the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 will be squarely applicable in the instant case. It is well settled law that the provisions of the notification has to be construed strictly. Further, the 9 Member Bench of the Hon 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 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Officials. However, there in no mention about the same in their letter dated 04.09.2012 and no 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there is no provision in the said notification for any relaxation in period of filing the claim, and that they have withdrawn their refund claim by themselves, and later filed the claim on 27.05.2013 by which time the impugned refund claim was hit by limitation of time, the same was liable to be rejected, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port 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 refund claims. Further, he contends that the time limit for filing the refund claim is specifically mentioned in Para 5(c) of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007, which reads as under:- 5(c). The importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied 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 contentions of both sides and perusal of the records, it is observed that the 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 limit of one year prescribed in the notification had clearly expired. It is observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
