The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has upheld the rejection of a refund claim, stating that refund claims for Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) on imported goods must be filed with jurisdictional customs officers within one year of payment.
Mr. S Chatterjee, representing the appellant, submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is the refund of Special Additional Duty ( SAD ). He submits that the time-limit of one year prescribed for filing the refund application should start from the date of sale of the goods. In support of his argument, he cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla.
Mr. Subrata Debnath, representing the revenue submitted in the case of M/s. Abhishek Marketing v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), wherein the Tribunal has held that the one-year period for filing the refund claim should start from the date of payment of additional customs duty. Accordingly, he prayed for rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant.
The bench find that the High Court of Delhi has taken a liberal view in interpreting the exemption notification and held that since the purpose of availing the SAD is to provide level playing field between the imported goods and the domestic goods, when the imported goods are resold on payment of VAT to the State Government, the exemption notification provides for refund of SAD.
Consequently, the refund application of the importer beyond the time limit has been correctly rejected by the lower authorities. The impugned order rejecting such refund claim is correct in law and calls for no interference. The appeal was rejected and the impugned order was upheld.
. The single member bench of the tribunal comprising K. Anpazhakan ( Technical member ) observed that the judgements of the Delhi High Court cited by the appellant pertain to refund claims filed prior to the amendment carried out vide Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. Thus, CESTAT found that the decisions cited by the appellant are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, CESTAT does not see any reasons for interfering with the impugned orders and the same were accordingly upheld.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
