Relief for Suzuki India: Delhi HC allows SAD Refunds Despite Filing Beyond One-Year Limitation [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd refunds of Special Additional Duty (SAD) despite the claims being filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under the amended notification.

The respondent, Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd., had imported motorcycles and parts over various periods and paid SAD under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The company subsequently filed refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., which allows SAD refunds when the imported goods are sold in India and VAT or sales tax is paid.

Tax Audit Deadline Is Near! Are you prepared? Click here

The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected refund claims because the claims were filed beyond the one-year deadline introduced by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, and some original supporting documents had not been furnished.

Read More: Goods Supplied Under Fraudulent Order Without Payment: AAR Rules GST Still Applicable on Issued Invoices

On appeal, the CESTAT allowed the refunds, relying on the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del)], which allowed SAD refunds even when filed after the stipulated time.

Tax Audit Deadline Is Near! Are you prepared? Click here

The department's counsel argued that the refund claims were time-barred and that Section 27 of the Customs Act should apply strictly. They further submitted that the Supreme Court had not conclusively resolved the divergence between the Delhi and Bombay High Court positions.

The bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that several coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court had upheld SAD refunds in similar factual contexts, even post the one-year limitation amendment.

Read More: CBIC issues Instructions for processing GST Registration Applications

The court ruled that the consistent jurisprudence of the Delhi High Court could not be overturned merely due to the Bombay High Court's differing view in CMS Info Systems Ltd., especially when the objective of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was to prevent double taxation.

The court held that procedural delay could not nullify a legitimate claim when the substantive conditions for a refund, like payment of VAT/sales tax on resale, had been fulfilled. The court dismissed the department’s appeals, upheld the refund orders passed by the CESTAT.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates