2014 (3) TMI 971 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - Duty paid twice - Held that - The appellant filed the refund claim for excess duty paid by them although at the time of filing Bill of Entry on 18-9-2002, they have not received the impugned goods. But both the lower authorities have not raised the issue at the time bar of refund claim. But being the legal issue, it can be raised at this stage. The argument advanced by the learned AR that the refund claim is barred by limitation is not tenable as the appellant is being a Research Institute and filed the refund claim within one year from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, I hold that the refund claimed filed by the appellant is rightly made within time. Further, I find that the appellant has not received the missing equipments and to that effect they have obtained a certificate from the supplier of the equipments. I also noticed that the appellant has not paid any amount over and above the agreed prices. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled for the refund claim. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection, Barred by limitation, Duty payment, Missing equipment, Certificate from supplier, Excess duty paid, Research Institute status, Time limit for refund claim.

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellant, a Research Institute, imported goods declared as "Telescope Valve and Handling Equipment." Three equipment were found missing from the imported system during installation. The appellant filed a refund claim for duty paid twice on these missing items. Both lower authorities rejected the claim, stating that the delay in reporting the missing equipment after the initial clearance made the claim untenable. The appellant appealed this decision.

Barred by Limitation:
The respondent argued that the refund claim was time-barred as the appellant filed the claim after a significant delay from the date of duty payment. However, the appellant contended that the claim was filed within one year from the payment date, as permissible for a Research Institute. The Tribunal held that the claim was not barred by limitation, as it was within the legal time frame for filing a refund claim.

Duty Payment and Missing Equipment:
The appellant paid duty on the agreed amount for the imported goods but later discovered the absence of three items. These missing items were subsequently cleared after filing Bills of Entry and paying duty again. The appellant claimed a refund for the excess duty paid on these items, supported by a certificate from the supplier confirming the oversight. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not paid any additional amount for the missing equipment beyond the agreed price, making them eligible for the refund claim.

Certificate from Supplier and Excess Duty Paid:
The appellant obtained a certificate from the supplier confirming that the missing equipment were supplied without extra charges. The Tribunal considered this certificate along with the fact that no additional payment was made for the missing items. This supported the appellant's claim for a refund of the excess duty paid due to the missing equipment.

Research Institute Status and Time Limit for Refund Claim:
As a Research Institute, the appellant filed the refund claim within the allowable time frame of one year from the duty payment date. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's status and timely filing, concluding that the refund claim was valid. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcome of the case.