2003 (5) TMI 394 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of Orders-in-Appeal dated 18-10-1992.
2. Time bar for filing refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
3. Deemed payment under protest.
4. Legal remedy pursued by the respondents.
5. Amount involved less than Rs. 2 lakhs.
6. Interpretation of settled judgments by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The Revenue sought a stay of the Orders-in-Appeal dated 18-10-1992, contending that the claim of refund should have been filed within six months from the duty payment date under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The respondents argued that their appeal against the assessment order was allowed, and they processed their claim under protest, relying on various judgments cited by the Commissioner.

2. The respondents maintained that their claims were not time-barred as they pursued legal remedies based on the cited judgments. Both sides acknowledged that the amounts involved were less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled and decided to take up the main appeals for a decision as the matter was straightforward.

3. The respondents contested the assessments filed on the Bill of Entry basis, and after their appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), they filed refund claims. The lower authority rejected the claims as time-barred, but the Commissioner held that the payments made under protest were deemed so due to the favorable appeal outcome. Citing various judgments, including those of the Apex Court and Tribunal, the Commissioner concluded that the claims were not time-barred.

4. The Tribunal examined the Commissioner's analysis of the settled judgments, including those related to unjust enrichment, and found that the Commissioner rightly held that the claims were not time-barred as the appellants had promptly appealed the assessment orders. The matter was directed back to the original authority for unjust enrichment consideration as per the Commissioner's order.

5. Considering the detailed submissions and settled legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected all four stay petitions and appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The decision was based on the understanding that the claims were not time-barred due to the legal actions taken by the appellants in pursuing their remedies effectively.