[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Now Known As Principal Commissioner Of ... vs M/S.A.S.Chattha Exim Private Limited on 16 February, 2026
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
1
OD - 25
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction [Customs]
ORIGINAL SIDE
CUSTA/65/2025
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PORT),
NOW KNOWN AS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
VS
M/S.A.S.CHATTHA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Date : 16th February, 2026
Appearance :
Mr. Abhradip Maity, Adv.
...for appellant.
The Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the
memorandum of appeal and the order dated 6th May, 2025 passed by the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. The Tribunal's order is read as
follows :
"1. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a regular importer having
their office at 28, Dr. Sundari Mohan Avenue, Kolkata 700 014. During the period
under dispute, the appellant had filed six (06) Bills of Entry and cleared the
goods on payment of Customs duty including Special Additional Duty (SAD).
After sale of the imported goods, the appellant filed an application for refund of
4% SAD amounting to Rs.4,13,940/- before the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, Appraising Refund Section (Port), Custom House, Kolkata in respect of
the said Bills of Entry in terms of Para 2(E) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008,
which was in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in Civil Appeal
No. 2709 of 2016 on 26.02.2016.
2. A Show Cause Notice dated 14.02.2020 was issued to the appellant
2
proposing to reject the refund claim as the same had been made after the expiry
of more than one year of the date of payment of duty or interest, in contravention
of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also alleged that the appellant had
failed to submit mandatory documents in support of their claim.
3. The matter was taken up for adjudication by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of
Customs, ARS (Port), who vide his Order-in-Original No.
KOL/CUS/DC/307/ARS/2020 dated 19.06.2020 rejected the instant refund
claim on the ground that the same is not maintainable as per the provisions of
Section 27 ibid.
4. The appellant thereafter challenged the above order before the Ld.
Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the impugned order dated 18.06.2021,
rejected their appeal.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim as above, the appeal is before
this Tribunal.
6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits
that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra as the same has already
been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v.
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata [Final Order No. 77170 of 2024 dated
21.10.2024
in Customs Appeal No. 77004 of 2019 -CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein,
under identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has remanded the matter
back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain as to whether the appellant had
filed the refund claim within one year from the date of sale of goods in the
domestic market or not.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue justifies
the rejection of the refund claim filed by the appellant.
8. Heard both sides, perused the appeal papers and the documentary evidence
available on record.
9. We find that in this case, the issue to be decided by us is as to whether the
rejection of the refund claim of SAD filed by the appellant under Notification No.
102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 on the ground that the same is filed beyond the
period of one year from the date of payment of such duty, is in order or not. We
observe that the same issue has already been dealt with by this Tribunal in the
case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra), wherein, after examining the facts and
circumstances of the case and taking note of the decision of the Larger Bench of
this Tribunal in the case of Ambey Sales v. Commissioner of Cus., GRFL,
Ludhiana in Customs Appeal No. 60402 of 2020 dated 04.06.2024 (CESTAT,
Chandigarh), it was observed as under: -
"We find that the issue was referred to the Larger Bench whether the date of sale
of goods in domestic market is the date for calculating the time limit for claiming
of refund or the date of payment of SAD at the time of importation shall be
counted and the same has been settled holding that the date of sale of goods in the
domestic market is the date to count the time limit of one year to claim the refund
of SAD paid by the appellant.
7. In that circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand matter
back to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the fact whether the appellant has
filed refund claim within one year of the date of sale of goods in the domestic
market or not. If it is found that appellant has filed refund claimed within one
year from the date of sale of the goods in domestic market then the order of
sanctioning of refund claim shall be restored."
9.1. We find that the facts of the above case are squarely applicable to the case in
hand and hence, we do not see any reason to deviate from the said view.
Therefore, by following the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
(supra), we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, to ascertain the
fact as to whether the appellant in this case has filed the refund claim within a
period of one year from the date of sale of goods in the domestic market or not. If
the appellant has filed the instant refund claim within the time period of one
year from the date of sale of the goods in the domestic market, then the refund
claim shall be sanctioned to the appellant.
10. The appeal stands disposed of by way of remand."
It is seen that the matter is regarding refund. We do not find any substantial
question of law arising from this appeal and, thus, this appeal is dismissed.
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)
(UDAY KUMAR, J.)
sd/
