One‑Year Limit Binds SAD Refund Claims on Imports After 1 Aug 2008: CESTAT Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that the Delhi High Court’s Sony India ruling covers only pre-amendment imports, so an importer’s late claim for refund of 4% SAD on almonds fails.

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has held that refund claims of the 4% special additional duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus must be filed within one year of payment, a limit inserted by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus from 1 Aug 2008, where the imports took place after that date [The Commissioner of Customs, Mangaluru v. Gajanan Worldtrade India Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3319-CESTAT(Bangalore)-Customs].

The appeal was decided by R. Bhagya Devi, Member (Technical). The importer filed a refund claim of ₹19,11,229 on 1 Jan 2018 for SAD paid on almonds in shell imported under three bills of entry of October and November 2016. The duty had been paid on 27 Oct 2016 and 23 Nov 2016. The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, holding that limitation could not start before the right to refund crystallised on sale.

The importer argued that it filed within five months of its last domestic sale on 8 Aug 2017. It relied on Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2014) and later decisions. The Revenue relied on CMS Info Systems Ltd. vs. Union of India (2017), which held that the refund power is traceable to Section 27 and its statutory bar cannot be ignored.

The Tribunal held that Sony India answered a narrower question: whether the one-year limit introduced in August 2008 could apply retrospectively to goods imported before the amendment. The decisions that followed it rested on that ruling. For claims relating to imports after 1 Aug 2008, the time limit had to be strictly complied with, since conditions of an exemption notification are to be strictly construed. Here the bills of entry and duty payments all followed the amendment, and the claim was beyond one year.

The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Revenue’s appeal allowed, restoring the rejection of the refund.

2026-juristway.com-3319-CESTAT(Bangalore)-Customs