2015 (2) TMI 872 - AT - Customs

Refund rejected - More than one Refund filed in a month - Violation of Board s Circular No. 06/2008 dated 28/4/2008 - Held that - It is very obvious that it is not intention of the Board Circular that even though the period of one year is getting expired, the assessee is not allowed to file more than one refund claim in a month. In my view even if more than one claim in a month is filed the same can not be denied only because of the reason that circular prescribed only one refund claim in a month otherwise statutory time limit of one year provided in the notification will become redundant. In similar situation this Tribunal in the case of B.S.L. Ltd. 2007 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that the refund under Rule 5 is permissible despite the claim having been second time in a month which is violation of condition of 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1/3/2002. In my view this was held keeping in mind that though there is procedure to file one refund in a month or in the quarter as case may be but since time limit of one year is prescribed for filing refund claim the said procedure infraction should not come in way of the substantial claim of the assessee. Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of para 4.2 of CBEC Circular in filing multiple refund claims in a month.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudicating authority. The appellant had filed a refund claim against two bills of entry, but it was rejected for violating the condition of Para 4.2 of CBEC Circular No. 06/2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal stating that the appellant was aware of the procedure and could have filed a single claim per month as per the Circular. The appellant contended that the goods were unsold when the first claim was filed, and they had to file the second claim within the month to avoid time-bar. The Revenue argued that multiple claims in a month violated the Circular, thus no entitlement for the second claim.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the Circular allowed a single claim per month irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry. However, in this case, the goods covered in the second claim were unsold when the first claim was filed. The Tribunal observed that if the second claim was not filed in May 2013, the appellant risked missing the one-year statutory time limit from the date of duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that the Circular's intent was not to restrict claims if the one-year period was expiring. Citing a previous Tribunal judgment, the Tribunal held that procedural violations should not hinder legitimate refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the refund claim.

This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting procedural rules in line with statutory time limits and ensuring that legitimate claims are not denied due to technicalities. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need to balance procedural compliance with the substantive rights of the parties involved in customs matters.