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 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: -

"W