2011 (11) TMI 155 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim on ground of limitation refund claim of Ist consignment rejected on same ground restored by Tribunal value of imported two consignments were in dispute settled in favor of assessee - Held that - The discharge of customs duty liability on the enhanced value and preferring an appeal was payment of duty under protest and that since the assessee succeeded in the litigation, the question of time bar did not arise. In view of the decision in the case of the appellants themselves, the rejection of refund claim on ground of limitation cannot be sustained. The issue of unjust enrichment as sought to be raised by the Department has to be dealt with by the original authority. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar for excess duty paid by appellant-assessee in respect of Bill of Entry No. 3910 dated 28.10.2005.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore was against the rejection of a refund claim by the original authority on the ground of time bar. The appellant, an assessee, had paid excess duty in relation to Bill of Entry No. 3910 dated 28.10.2005, which was also covered by an earlier Final Order of the Tribunal dated 2.1.2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the original authority's decision. The appellant argued that a similar appeal by the same assessee had been allowed by the Tribunal in a previous case, and therefore, this appeal should also be allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the values declared by the appellants for imported consignments were in dispute, and a common order dated 2.1.2008 had settled the matter in favor of the assessee. In a previous appeal arising out of refund proceedings, the Tribunal had held that the payment of duty on the enhanced value and filing an appeal constituted payment 'under protest.' Since the assessee had succeeded in the litigation, the question of time bar did not apply. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of limitation could not be sustained.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the authority below, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal directed that the issue of unjust enrichment, raised by the Departmental Representative, should be addressed by the original authority after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing that the refund claim was not time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case highlighted the importance of considering past precedents and ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness are upheld in matters of refund claims and duty payments.