Case Law Details
Katyal Metal Agencies Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
Introduction: In a recent decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata addressed the case of Katyal Metal Agencies vs. Commissioner of Customs. The case involved the rejection of a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on shoe imports due to the non-inclusion of an allegation in the show cause notice. The appellant challenged the rejection, asserting that the limitation period for filing the appeal was incorrect.
Detailed Analysis: The appellant, an importer, had imported shoes and paid the necessary duty at the time of importation. Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS for the refund of SAD paid during importation. In response to these refund claims, a show cause notice was issued, alleging that the appellant should have paid Sales Tax/VAT to be eligible for SAD refund, as per Para 2(d) of Notification No. 102/2007-CUS.
The show cause notice did not include an allegation that the refund claims were time-barred. Despite this, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, citing both merit and limitation. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected the appeal on both grounds.
The appellant argued that the limitation period for filing the appeal was incorrect, as they had received the adjudication order before the date mentioned in the rejection letter. Additionally, they contended that the show cause notice did not include an allegation of being time-barred, and therefore, the subsequent rejection on this ground was unjustified.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
