2014 (6) TMI 20 - AT - Customs

Bar of Limitation - Refund of claim of CVD (Additional Customs Duty) - Concessional Duty Notification No. 7/20013-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 Unchallenged assessment - Held That - Judgment in ASSISTANT COLLR. OF CUS. Versus ANAM ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed Where refund application was filed by manufacturer/purchaser beyond the statutory time limit of Section 11B/27, such petitions must be held to be untenable in law, regardless of any direction to the contrary contained in the order in any appeal, suit or writ petition - Statutory time limit not extendable by any authority or Court in case of illegal levy Relying upon Hero Cycles Ltd. Versus Union of India 2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - It was observed that without challenging the assessment there cannot be refund claim - Assessees have not challenged the assessment at all but have filed refund claim - Refund claims have to be considered u/s 27 - Appeal has no merit Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of duty at standard rate instead of concessional rate.
2. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed 15 Bills of Entry between April to July 2004, where duty was calculated at the standard rate of CVD instead of the concessional rate available under Notification No. 7/20013-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. Consequently, excess duty was collected, leading the appellant to submit a refund claim. However, the refund claim was rejected citing the limitation of time prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The appellant contended that since the assessment was conducted by the customs officer and the duty collected was without legal authority due to the incorrect assessment, the limitation under Section 27 should not apply. They relied on previous court decisions to support their argument. On the other hand, the learned AR referenced judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Bombay to emphasize that a refund claim must be made in accordance with the law and challenging the assessment is a prerequisite for a refund claim.

3. The presiding Member considered the arguments presented by both parties and referred to the judgments cited. The Member noted that the decisions highlighted by the appellant were older, whereas the ones referenced by the learned AR were more recent. It was concluded that since the appellants did not challenge the assessment but directly filed a refund claim, the claim must be evaluated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to lack merit and was rejected.