2009 (5) TMI 762 - AT - Customs

Refund - time Limitation - payment under Protest - burden of proof - Held that - filing an appeal against an order of assessment amounts to protest and refund cannot be denied on the ground of time-bar - the claim of the assessees is not hit by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of duty-free clearance under Notification No. 132/61-Cus.
2. Rejection of refund claim by original authority on grounds of time-bar and lack of relevant documents.
3. Appeal against rejection of refund claim.
4. Interpretation of payment of duty as 'under protest' due to filing an appeal.
5. Precedent regarding filing an appeal against an order of assessment as a form of protest.
6. Admissibility of refund claim on merits.

Analysis:

1. The appellants re-imported a consignment of Ibuprofen and sought clearance under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming duty-free clearance under Notification No. 132/61-Cus. The benefit of the notification was disallowed initially, leading to a series of appeals and remands by different authorities.

2. The original authority rejected the refund claim on grounds of being time-barred and lack of substantiation with relevant documents. Subsequent appeals were made challenging this rejection, leading to further remands and rejections.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim, prompting the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal seeking relief.

4. The Tribunal considered the submission that payment of duty on the goods should be treated as payment 'under protest' since the appellants challenged the assessment by filing an appeal. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that filing an appeal against an order of assessment constitutes a form of protest, making the refund claim not subject to time-bar limitations.

5. Referring to the case law Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Magna Corpro Chems India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal established that the claim of the assessees was not time-barred and that the refund was admissible on merits due to re-exportation of the goods and the extended benefit of the notification claimed by the assessees.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the refund was admissible to the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the case, including the interpretation of 'under protest' payments, the significance of filing appeals as a form of protest, and the admissibility of refund claims based on merits and precedents.