Sree Rajendra Textiles Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
There is no dispute that after adjudication / assessment, the appellant did remit the CVD plus BCD and the same was not under protest and, as could be seen from the pleadings as well as the orders of both the lower authorities, the said adjudication / assessment had reached finality for the same reason. This happened perhaps in the year 2008 and since then, there is nothing available on record to suggest that the appellant had litigated directly or indirectly and that its litigation was pending before any of the authorities including CESTAT. There is also no whisper about intimating the Revenue about the pendency of any litigation before any fora in this It was nearly after ten years that the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. (supra) was passed, which 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. This is clearly an afterthought, which cannot be accepted, since the scope of Section 27 ibid. is limited to the claimant who pursues by means of litigation before higher authorities and hence, any third person cannot derive any benefit out of the same. In my view, clearly, the appellant having slept over its right for nearly ten years, cannot take shelter as it has taken, which is not permitted under law. I am of the considered opinion, therefore, 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal Seaport C.Cus. II No. 226/2020 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.
2. The only issue, therefore, that is to be considered is: whether the rejection of refund of CVD claimed by the taxpayer is correct or not?
3. Heard Shri M.A. Mudimannan, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Learned Superintendent for the Revenue.
4. The contentions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant are summarized as under:-
