2008 (4) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Refund limitation - in a letter dated 19-1-2005 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DEPB Section) the appellants requested for recredit of the BCD amount in their DEPB as also for refund of the other duties of Customs refund claim filed on 30-3-2005was rejected as time-barred - held that refund claim made in proper format beyond limitation period is to be treated as in continuation of earlier claim which was made in letter within time limit refund is not time-barred

Summary

Issues: Refund claim for Customs duty - Time-barred claim - Proper format and prescribed officer for refund claim - Delhi High Court and Apex Court precedents - Jurisdictional requirements for refund application.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported titanium coils and paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and other Customs duties. Due to a mix-up, the goods received were not as ordered, leading to re-export to Peru with permission from the Commissioner of Customs.

2. Subsequently, the appellants sought a refund of the BCD and other duties paid. The Deputy Commissioner recredited the BCD in the DEPB but did not act on the refund claim. The claim was later filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, rejected as time-barred, and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal to the Tribunal.

3. The appellants argued that their refund claim should not be time-barred based on a Delhi High Court decision and a Supreme Court judgment. The Respondent contended that the claim did not meet the requirements of Section 27 of the Customs Act, citing a Supreme Court decision and emphasizing the need for strict compliance.

4. Referring to the case of Poulose & Matthen, where a refund application was accepted despite being filed before an officer without territorial jurisdiction, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument. The lack of coordination among Customs officers should not deprive a rightful claimant of their entitlement.

5. The Tribunal held that the refund claim filed in proper format should be treated as having been filed on the initial date, not time-barred. The Deputy Commissioner should have directed the claim to the correct officer within the Customs House. The claim, accompanied by necessary documents, should be evaluated based on Section 27 requirements.

6. Consequently, the lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the original authority was directed to assess the refund claim, ensuring compliance with unjust enrichment provisions. The appeal was allowed to this extent, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions.