ABAD INSULATION PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellant with respect to the OIA No. 184/2014/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD, dt. 01.05.2014.

(2.) SHRI R. Subramanya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that once the original refund claim of anti dumping duty was filed corrigendum to Notification No. 30/2011 -Cus, dt. 14.07.2010 was not issued as per F. No. 354/95/2010 -TRU, dt. 31.03.2011. That refund claim became due as a result of corrigendum dt. 31.03.2011. Therefore, the original assessment order and refund claim filed by the Appellant is not relevant. That after corrigendum dt. 31.03.3011, other refund claims filed by the Appellant with respect to anti dumping duty was sanctioned by the Department. Learned Advocate relied upon the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi Vs Chandra Prabhu International Ltd. [ : 2014 (302) ELT 168 (Del)]. He made the Bench go through Para 11 & 12 of this case law to argue that Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act is a complete code for refund of anti dumping duty and that the provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 will not be applicable. It was his case that the anti dumping duty paid by the Appellant initially at the time of clearance was without authority of law after corrigendum dt. 31.03.2011 was issued with respect to Notification No. 30/2011 -Cus, dt. 31.03.2011 and no time bar is applicable to deposits made without authority of law. Learned Advocate also argued that no Rules prescribing time limit under Rule 9AA(2)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 have been framed. That in the absence of any Rules framed with respect to limitation on refund of anti dumping duty, a reasonable period will be considered as appropriate for filing the refund claim. It was his case that the period taken by the Appellant to file the refund claim is a reasonable period for claiming refund.

(3.) SHRI T.K. Sikdar, learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the Appellant has not contested the original assessment which has also been upheld by CESTAT and accordingly, the refund claim filed by the Appellant as time barred under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962.