Case Law Details
Shital Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Jamnagar(prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: In a recent verdict by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Ahmedabad, the case of Shital Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Jamnagar was ordered for re-consideration. The critical issue at hand was about the one-year period for filing a refund. The tribunal clarified that in cases where an initial provisional assessment was made, the period should begin from the date of finalizing the bill of entry, not from the date of duty payment.
Analysis: The case presented to CESTAT questioned the starting point for the one-year time limit for filing a refund under notification no. 102/2007-Cus for Special Additional Duty (SAD). The tribunal leaned on a prior judgment (Bharat Ship Breakers Corporation and others), which stated that the one-year period for refund application should be counted from the final assessment of the bill of entry date, not the duty payment date.
Despite the argument being presented before both the lower authorities, no findings were provided. Therefore, CESTAT deemed that the matter needed to be re-considered. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order after verifying the provisional and final assessment of the bill of entry and considering the tribunal’s judgment in the Bharat Ship Breakers Corporation case.
Conclusion: The CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in the Shital Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Jamnagar case shines a spotlight on the specifics of refund filing procedures, particularly the timeframe for such requests. The tribunal emphasized the importance of the bill of entry’s final assessment date in such instances, setting a notable precedent for future cases involving similar scenarios. The matter’s remand to the adjudicating authority ensures the case will be examined in detail, considering previous judgments and facts.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is that for the purpose of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of notification no. 102/2007-Cus ,the time limit of one year for filing the refund is applicable from the date of payment of duty or in the case of provisional assessment from date of final assessment of bill of entry.
02. Shri Rahul Gajera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is covered by this tribunal judgment in the case of Bharat Ship Breakers Corporation and others vide final order No. A/10736-10737/2023 dated 27.03.2023 according to which the limit of one year for filing refund is reckoned from the date of final assessment of bill of entry and not from the payment of duty.
03. None appearing on behalf of other appellant M/s Anand Exports.
04. Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
05. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that in principle this tribunal has taken a view in the case of Bharat Ship Breakers Corporation and others vide order dated 27.03.2023 wherein, in the identical case it was opined that one year period for filing the refund shall be taken from the date of finalization of bill of entry in a case where initially the assessment was made provisional. However, despite this issue was raised before both the lower authorities, both the lower authorities have not given any finding on this therefore, I am of the view that the matter needs to be re-considered after verifying about the provisional assessment and final assessment of bill of entry and also taking into consideration the above cited tribunal’s judgment in the case of Bharat Ship Breakers Corporation and others (supra)
06. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.
(Pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2023)
