2011 (6) TMI 373 - AT - Customs

Refund Claims - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The assessees had raised a plea that a joint representation had been made by the iron ore exporters (including them) through the Hindustan Chambers of Commerce vide letter dated 29.7.2008 which according to the respondents should be treated as a lodge of protest - Held that - Plea of the assessee has not been considered by the lower appellate authority who has only given a finding on the non-applicability of Section 27 to the present claims for refund - The plea regarding lodging of protest requires to be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision to the lower appellate authority to pass fresh orders on all issues which may be raised before him by the respondents - The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Claims for refund rejected on the ground of time bar, applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, lodging of protest by iron ore exporters.

Analysis:
1. Claims for refund rejected on the ground of time bar: The Appellate Tribunal noted that the claims for refund filed by the assessees were rejected by the adjudicating authority citing time bar as the reason. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) took a different stance, holding that the provisions of Section 27 prescribing a longer period for filing refund claims were not applicable due to the absence of an assessment order in the present cases. This discrepancy led to the appeal by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal unequivocally stated that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable in all cases of refund. Consequently, if a claim is time-barred, the Commissioner (Appeals) should reject it on the grounds of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the provisions of Section 27 were not applicable in the present cases. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority failed to consider a plea raised by the assessees regarding a joint representation made by iron ore exporters, which could be treated as a lodge of protest. This aspect was deemed necessary for consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Lodging of protest by iron ore exporters: The plea raised by the assessees regarding the lodging of protest through a joint representation made by iron ore exporters was highlighted by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authority had not addressed this plea, focusing solely on the non-applicability of Section 27 to the refund claims. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh decision to the lower appellate authority, instructing a comprehensive review of all issues raised by the respondents, including the plea related to the lodging of protest by the iron ore exporters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of the issues at hand, particularly the applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the plea regarding the lodging of protest, to ensure a just and well-informed decision.