Almond Importer Loses Rs 19.11 Lakh SAD Refund Claim For Filing More Than A Year After Duty Payment: CESTAT

The respondent claimed a refund of ₹19,11,229 in respect of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported almonds under three Bills of Entry.

The SAD was paid on 27 October and 23 November 2016, and the refund claim was filed on 1 January 2018.

The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus.; the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, reasoning that the right to refund crystallised upon domestic sale and that the claim was within time from the last sale.

The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal

Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. provides for refund of SAD on imported goods subsequently sold, subject to its conditions.

Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. amended paragraph 2(c) to require the refund claim to be filed before expiry of one year from payment of SAD.

The Tribunal applied the principle that conditions attached to a conditional exemption must be complied with, relying on the Bombay High Court’s decision in CMS Info Systems Ltd. v. Union of India, which upheld the one-year condition for claims governed by the amended notification.

It distinguished Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which concerned the retrospective application of the amendment to imports made before it came into force.

The Tribunal also relied on Ingram Micro India Ltd. and the reasoning in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. concerning post-amendment claims and strict compliance with the notification’s time limit.

The imports and SAD payments occurred in October and November 2016, well after the 1 August 2008 amendment introduced the one-year filing period.

The claim filed on 1 January 2018 was therefore outside that period, including as measured from the later SAD payment on 23 November 2016.

The Tribunal held that Sony India did not assist the respondent because it addressed whether the amendment could apply retrospectively to pre-amendment imports, not whether a post-amendment claim could disregard the express time limit.

It followed the approach in CMS Info Systems and the cited Tribunal decisions, concluding that subsequent sale and proof of sales tax payment did not excuse non-compliance with the notification’s separate one-year condition.

It set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order, allowed the Revenue’s appeal, and upheld rejection of the refund claim