M/S. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Jnch, Mumbau
- CitationAppeal No. C/86890/2013-Mum.
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A refund claim filed within the statutory time limit but before an authority lacking jurisdiction over the Bill of Entry is not barred on that account; the claim is to be treated as validly filed, following the Tribunal's earlier decision in Singh International and Polyglass, which relied on the Gujarat High Court in AIA Engineering. Where a refund claim under the relevant notification is filed beyond the one-year period prescribed by that notification, the claim is time-barred and must be rejected, the statutory time limit being binding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. C/86890/2013-Mum. C/CO-911071/2013-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 209(CRC-IIB)/2013 (JNCH)/IMP-158 dt. 13.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Mumbau :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri G.S. Dave, Manager Excise & Logistics for Appellant
Shri S.J. Sahu Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 20/02/2015 Date of decision : 20/02/2015
ORDER NO.
The appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The issue relates to grant of SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007 dt. 14.9.2007. An amount of Rs.2,58,412/- has been rejected in respect of 2 Bills of Entry for which the refund claim was filed before the authorities in Baroda Commissionerate, whereas the refund claims were required to be filed with Nhava Sheva Customs. In respect of these Bills of Entry the claim was filed within time before Baroda Commissionerate. However, in respect of two other Bills of Entry dt. 18.12.2008 and 15.12.2008, the refund claim was filed in Baroda Commissionerate on 29.12.2009 i.e. beyond the statutory time period laid in the notification.
2. Heard both sides.
3. I have carefully gone through the rival submissions. As far as filing of refund claims within the statutory time limit but filed before the wrong authority is concerned, the issue already stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Singh International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai and Polyglass Acrycle Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2014-TIOL-2369-CESTAT-MUM., in which reliance was placed on the Honble High Court of Gujarat judgement in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. Therefore, refund of Rs.2,58,412/- is allowed.
4. As regards the remaining 2 Bills of Entry in which the refund claim was filed beyond the period of 1 year the refund is rejected, in view of the statutory time limit laid in the law.
5. The appeal is allowed partly in above terms. Cross-objection is also disposed of.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court )
(P. S. Pruthi) Member (Technical)
Sm
??
??
??
??
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free