Paxal Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ...
- CitationAppeal No. 15-2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a refund claim for Special Additional Duty is filed, the refund must be governed by the notification as it stood on the date of payment of the duty; a limitation period introduced by a later amendment to the notification does not apply to a claim relating to duty paid before that amendment took effect. Where a Tribunal decision on materially comparable facts has held that a particular limitation provision does not apply to such a claim, a refund claim rejected on the ground of that limitation cannot be sustained, the issue being covered by that precedent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 15-2012 dated 10/02/2012 passed by CC(Appeals), Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
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?
PAXAL CORPORATION P.B. NO.6655, # 301, PAXAL TOWER 3RD FLOOR, 13, S.K.R.ROAD, FORT, BANGALORE 560 002 Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-CUS NULL C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri PRADYUMNA G.H., Advocate NO. 244, 1ST CROSS, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 2nd Block BANGALORE - 560085 KARNATAKA For the Appellant
Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 12/06/2015
Date of Decision: 12/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21333 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
The refund claim for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. The SAD was paid in April 2008 and refund claim was filed in May 2009. During the relevant time, Notification No.102/2007-Customs did not have any provision relating to time limit within which the refund claim has to be filed. The Notification was amended on 01/08/2008 and the time limit of one year was prescribed for filing the refund claim. Since the SAD refund claim was filed by the appellant in April 2008, the refund claim was to be considered in accordance with the Notification as it existed at the time of payment of SAD. The learned counsel relies upon the decision in the case of Audioplus Vs. CC(Imports), Raigad [2011(264) ELT 516 (Tri. Mumbai)] wherein while considering the refund claims filed on 01/12/2008, 20/10/2008, it was held that limitation of one year would not be applicable. The facts of this case are comparable to the facts of the present case. Since the issue is covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal, rejection of refund claim on this ground is not in order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
2
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