/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“CESTAT”) in the matter of John’s Cashew Company v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [Final Order 20792 /2021 dated October 18, 2021], allowed the refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty. Further, held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.
John’s Cashew Company (“the Appellant”) filed the current appeal being aggrieved of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. The Appellant has raised the issue in respect of eligibility of the Appellant for a refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (“SAD”) in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs dated September 14, 2007. The Appellant made the above claim for refund and after due adjudication vide the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner rejected 4% SAD of Rs.40,81,240/- being time-barred in terms of the above Notification. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, vide Order-in-Appeal upheld the rejection.
The Appellant had relied on some decisions in support of his claim and contended that neither the statute nor the original notification prescribed any limitation for claiming the refund of SAD and hence, imposition of time restriction by an amending notification is clearly bad in law. Per contra, the Department supported the findings of the lower authorities. Department also relied on an order of Chandigarh Bench to contend that the learned Single Member Bench in the case of Ambey Sales Vs. CC, Ludhiana [2021 (5) TMI 483 – CESTAT, Chandigarh dated May 13, 2021] has referred the matter to Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore said that both the Appellant and Department fairly agree that the above issue in appeal is subject-matter of difference of opinion by Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Courts and that we do not have the benefit of guidance by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Moreover the CESTAT said that there can be no dispute on the proposition that irrespective of whether or not the judgments of Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Courts are binding, these judgments deserve utmost respect which implies that at the minimum, these judgments are to be considered reasonable interpretations of the related legal and factual situation.
Further, the CESTAT relied upon the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [ 88 ITR 192 dated January 29, 1973] wherein it was held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. And in the present case Hon'ble non- jurisdictional High Court's judgment in favour of the assessee, in the light of this legal principle laid down by Supreme Court is to be preferred over the Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court not favourable to the assessee. Resultantly In view of the above held that the denial of refund is bad in law and hence not sustainable and the Order-in-Appeal is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Author can be reached at email@example.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held
The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export