Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 19 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Customs Appeal No. 170 of 2010-Cus (DB) [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No CC(A) Cus/I&G/30/2010 dated 22.1.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs , New Delhi] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Appellants Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Respondent
(Appeals) New Delhi Appearance:
Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K. Verma, AR for the Respondents CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 19.06.2013 ORDER NO .FO/ 56710/2013-Cus(BR) Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
The short issue involved in the present appeal is the refund of SAD paid by the appellant at the time of import of Television sets. The lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground of time bar by observing that duty was paid on 10.12.07 and 4.12.07 whereas the refund claim was filed on 12.12.2008, i.e. beyond the period of limitation of one year as provided in notification No. 6/2008.
2. The appellants have contended that as per the stamp of the bank on the TR 6 challans, the date of payment of duty is 14.12.07 and 19.12.07. As such, the refund made on 12.12.08 are within the period of one year.
3. It is seen that the lower authorities procured the report from the concerned banks and it was shown that stamps dated TR 6 challans was wrong and the actual payment of duty was on 10.12.2007 and 4.12.2007. On the said basis, refund claims were rejected as barred by limitation by the adjudicating authority as well as by Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Learned advocate appearing before us fairly agrees that the duties were actually deposited on 10th December and 4th December, 2007 and the stamp of the bank on the treasury challans showing date of deposit as 14.12.07 and 19.12.07 were wrongly marked. However he submits that the appellant has gone by the date of such stamps on the Treasury challans and has filed the refund claim within the period of one year from the date of treasury challans, as the stamped by Bank. He submits that the appellant is dealing with hundreds of bills of entry and it is not possible for them to keep the track of date of actual deposit of the duty. As such, he submits that banks stamp date should be taken as relevant date, though he fairly agrees that duties were deposited prior to such date.
5. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that it is the actual date of deposit of duty, which is relevant for the purpose of limitation of one year, as per prescribed in the notification No. 6/08. Inasmuch the appellant is not disputing the date of actual deposit of dues, he prays that refund claims filed on 12.12.08 is duly barred by limitation.
6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The dispute lies in narrow compass that is whether the date of actual payment of duty is relevant or the date of banks stamp on the TR 6 challan is relevant for the purpose of deciding the limitation. This is peculiar case where the duty was deposited on 10.12.07 and 4.12.07 and the bank has wrongly stamped the challans with the date stamp of 14.12.07 and 19.12.07. Be it as it may be, there is no dispute that duties were actually paid on 10th and 4th December of 2007. As per the provisions of notification No. 6/2008, refund of SAD has to be made within a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. We cannot change the said relevant date prescribed in the notification and cannot step into shoes of legislation. As such, we are of the view that refund having been filed beyond the period of limitation of one year is barred by limitation. The impugned orders are accordingly upheld and appeal rejected.
(Pronounced in the court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Manmohan Singh )
Member (Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
4