Customs – Cestat Chennai: Issue of timeline to claim refund of SAD – Held that the time limit prescribed under Section 27 would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification, however, the amended notification was effective on the date filing the claim, hence the importer should have filed his claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the additional duty of customs - Appeal rejected [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
27-May-2023 18:50:00
Order Date – 26 May 2023
Parties: M/s. Ingram Micro India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports – Air)
Facts –
- The Appellant, M/s. Ingram Micro India Ltd., filed a claim for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 for the period from 01/10/2007 to 31/10/2007.
- Department alleged that the claims should have been filed within one year from the payment of duty, they were filed after one year. Hence the same was rejected.
Issue –
- Whether refund can be claimed after one year from the payment of duty?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that in the absence of specific provision of section 27 being made applicable in Notification No.102/2007-Customs dated 14.9.2007 as amended, the time limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the said notification.
- Further the refund claim in the present case has been filed after the amendment to Notification No.102/2007-Cus. came into force. Conditions of a notification should be strictly construed.
- As per sub para (c) of para 2 of the amended notification, which was effective on the date of the appellant filing the claim, the importer should have filed his claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs. This has not been complied with and hence the claim has been correctly rejected by the impugned order.
- The appeal stands rejected.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation