2016 (9) TMI 413 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 time-bar - duty under protest in respect of some Bills of Entry not paid Held that - it is not in dispute that irrespective of any type of record in the department, the register by whatever name it is called, the protest was recorded. Therefore, there is no dispute that the duty payment made by the respondent is under protest. It is settled legal position that in case of refund arising out of the order settling the demand matter, a period of one year for filing refund is available from the date of the said order refund claim not hit by limitation appeal disposed off decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Whether the refund filed by the respondent was time-barred or not.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolved around the time-barred nature of the refund filed by the respondent. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as time-barred due to non-payment of duty under protest for certain Bills of Entry. However, part of the refund was sanctioned for Bills of Entry where duty was paid under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, leading the Revenue to appeal.

2. The Revenue contended that the refund was rightly sanctioned for one Bill of Entry where duty was paid under protest, but rejected for other Bills due to lack of evidence of protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) allegedly erred in considering register entries as proof of protest, which the Revenue argued were just file opening records, not protest registers. The Revenue claimed that the duty was not paid under protest for 19 out of 22 Bills of Entry, hence the refund was rightly rejected for those entries.

3. On the other hand, the respondent argued that whether termed as entry or protest register, the duty was paid under protest, known to the department, and thus not time-barred. The refund stemmed from a classification dispute settled by the Tribunal, justifying the filing within one year of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the duty payment was under protest for all Bills of Entry, as indicated in the department's records, and the refund was not time-barred.

4. The Tribunal's analysis of the Commissioner (Appeals) findings highlighted that the duty payment was recorded as under protest, regardless of the register's name. The Tribunal noted that the refund arose from the Tribunal's order on classification, allowing a one-year period for filing, met by the respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to no infirmity in the order.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision that the refund was not time-barred. The judgment emphasized the importance of payment under protest and the timeline for filing refunds related to tribunal orders, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.