Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi ... vs Radial Rubber Industries on 19 April, 2022
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.4.2022
+ CUSAA 43/2021 & CM No.34314/2021
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI
(ICD TKD) ......Appellant
Through: Mr Vaibhav Joshi with Mr Siddhant
Yadav, Advs.
versus
RADIAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES ......Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral):
1. In the connected matter i.e., CUSAA No.36/2021, today, the
following order has been passed:
"1. We are informed by the counsel for the parties that the
issue in hand in the present appeal concerns, as to whether or
not any limitation is prescribed with regard to a refund claim
involving Special Additional Customs Duty.
2. Mr S Sunil, who appears on behalf of the respondent,
says that the issue is covered in favour of the
respondent/assessee, by virtue of the judgment rendered by a
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Sony India Private Limited
vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (304) ELT 660
(Del), as also the judgment dated 21.09.2016 rendered by
another co-ordinate bench in CUSAA 25/2016, titled
Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Wilhelm Textiles India
Private Limited.
3. We are told that, insofar as Sony India is concerned, a
Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed, which was
dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.02.2016 on
the ground of delay, keeping the questions of law open.
3.1. It is also the submission of the counsel for the parties that
a SLP was preferred in Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. case
as well. We are told that the said SLP, which is, numbered as
SLP(C) No.1507/2017 has been admitted by the Supreme Court,
via order dated 15.04.2019.
3.2. Furthermore, we are informed by the counsel for the
parties that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid SLP.
4. Mr Sunil, however, informs us that a division bench of
the Bombay High Court in the judgement rendered in CMS Info
systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Ors.
2017 (349) ELT 236 has taken a contra view, qua the issue in
hand.
5. We may note, what is stated hereinabove by us-is also
captured in sub-paragraphs (v) and (vi) of paragraph 2 in the
present appeal.
6. Insofar as this bench is concerned, it is bound by the
judgment of its own co-ordinate bench, and, therefore, this
matter will have to be disposed of accordingly.
7. Given this position, the appeal is dismissed, and the
impugned order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] is
sustained.
7.1. Pending application i.e., CM No.33545/2021 is,
accordingly, closed.
8. Needless to add, if the appellant/revenue were to prefer
an appeal, the final view in the matter will abide by the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court."
2. For the reasons given in the aforesaid extract, the same direction
would have to be issued in the instant appeal as well.
3. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
3.1 The impugned order dated 25.02.2020, passed by the Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] is sustained.
4. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.
5. Needless to add, if the appellant/revenue were to prefer an appeal, the
final view in the matter will abide by the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
POONAM A. BAMBA, J
APRIL 19, 2022/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
