Order date – 22 September 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Sree Rajendra Textiles, imported silk fabrics through Chennai Port. Bills-of-Entry with all relevant documents were filed for assessment of the goods imported.
• There was a dispute as to whether silk fabrics imported were liable for CVD or not. The appellant, in order to save the demurrages and other charges, sought for adjudication / assessment of the Bills-of-Entry and consequential release of the goods. Hence, the CVD was collected after adjudication along with BCD.
• The appellant filed refund claim for the above CVD vide application dated 03.08.2017, after the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port-Exports) Vs. M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. dated 05.08.2016.
• The Assessee filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, whereby the rejection of refund of CVD, as made by the Assistant Commissioner came to be upheld.
• Aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this appeal.

Issues –

• Whether the rejection of refund of CVD claimed by the taxpayer is correct or not?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that there is no dispute that after adjudication/assessment, the appellant did remit the CVD plus BCD. And now, the appellant is trying to take advantage of by claiming that its application for refund is within one year from the date of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. (supra).
• The Tribunal also observed that the appellant having slept over its right for nearly ten years, cannot take shelter as it has taken, which is not permitted under law.
• Therefore, the Tribunal held that the period of limitation would not start from the date of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. (supra), as claimed by the appellant, but from the date of finalization of the Bills-of-Entry/ adjudication, as held by the lower authorities.
• Hence, the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim refund of CVD by the taxpayer.
• Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.