2016 (3) TMI 467 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - Period of limitation - Appellant submitted and acknowledged refund claim on 30.9.2010 and thereafter they made correspondence with the department and recasted refund was again submitted on 15/2/2012 - Revenue contended that in the register there is no entry in the name of the importer towards filing the claim on 30/9/2010, therfore refund claim filed by the importer is time- barred - Held that - from the copy of acknowledgement no doubt can be raised that the said acknowledgement is fake or forged. Even in the Adjudication order as well as in the Commissioner (Appeals) order there is no charge of any wrong doing or forgery as regard the acknowledgement of the filing of refund claim with the Custom department.Also, I do not agree with the lower authorities' contention that as general practice file number is mentioned on the acknowledgement. Once the appellant has been given acknowledgement unless until this held to be fake or forged, the said acknowledgement has to be accepted as proof of filing the refund claim. Therefore, acknowledgement submitted by the appellant should be taken as proof of filing refund claim and if that is so, it is well within stipulated time period and should not be rejected as time barred. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 6,09,228 towards 4% SAD, based on a notification. The claim was rejected by the Adjudicating authority citing time bar issues. The authority contended that the appellant failed to prove the submission date of the claim, as per the general practice of file numbering and acknowledgment. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected the appeal, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant's representative argued that the refund claim was indeed submitted and acknowledged on 30/9/2010. They further stated that all correspondence with the department reiterated the original submission date. The representative emphasized that the department's failure to record the receipt of the claim should not penalize the appellant. They presented evidence, including a rubber stamp and signature of the department personnel who received the claim, to support their case.

In contrast, the Revenue's representative supported the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the stance on the time bar issue. However, the Member (Judicial) found merit in the appellant's submissions. It was noted that the acknowledgment of the claim was genuine and not challenged as fake or forged by any authority. Disagreeing with the lower authorities' contention on file numbering practices, the Member emphasized that the acknowledgment should be accepted as proof of filing the claim unless proven otherwise. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating authority for processing the refund claim without considering the time bar aspect, with a directive for a personal hearing and disposal within two months from the receipt of the decision.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the acceptance of the acknowledgment as proof of filing the refund claim and directing the processing of the claim without time bar considerations.