Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Tirupati Trade Link Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. Kandla on 26 March, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.C/12101/2015-SM
[Arising out of OIA No. KDL-CUSTOM-000-APP-054-15-16 dated 01.10.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Ahmedabad]
M/s Tirupati Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs
C.C.E. Kandla Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Sh. Amit Laddha (Advocate) For Respondent: Smt. Nitina Nagori (A.R.) CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/decision:26.03.2018 Final Order No. A/ 10578 /2018 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both the sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No. KDL-CUSTOM-000-APP-054-15-16 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad.
3. The short issue involved in the present case is: whether the refund claim of 4% SAD paid by the appellant at the time of its import under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007, is barred by limitation.
4. Ld. Advocate Sh. Amit Laddha for the appellant submits that 4% SAD on imported gods was paid on 12.03.2008 and the refund claim was filed by them on 12.03.2009 as 11.03.2009 being a public holiday. It is his contention that therefore, the refund claim is not barred by limitation, prescribed under the said Notification, in view of Rule 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Also, he submits that in computing the time limit as per Section 9 of the General Clause Act, the date of payment of duty should be excluded in computing the period of one year.
5. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
6. I find that undisputedly, the appellant had paid duty in respect of bill of entry No. 232356 dated 11.03.2008 on 12.03.2008 and claimed the refund of 4% SAD paid against the said bill of entry on 12.03.2009. The Ld. Advocate categorically claimed that since 11.03.2009 was a holiday, therefore, the refund claim was filed on 12.03.2009 and within one year from the date of payment of duty. No contrary evidence is produced by the Revenue to rebut the said claim. I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in view of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Also, in computing the period of limitation of one year, the date of payment of duty should be excluded in view of Section 9 of the General Clause Act, 1897. Thus, the refund claim filed on 12.03.2009 is within time limit of one year as prescribed under the said Notification. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remand to the adjudication authority to examine the refund on merit.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 3 | Page C/12101/2015-SM