2016 (12) TMI 1370 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - EPCG licence scheme - N/N. 1/91-Cus dated 01/06/1991 - tax leviable without the authority of law not to be retained by the government - Held that - the appellant has no case on limitation as the Bills of Entry were finally assessed in 1991-92, we are at loss to understand how the said error was not noticed by the appellant till March 2003 when they filed the refund claim. Be that as it may, When the bills of entry were finalised and the goods were assessed under the Customs Act, 1962, any refund claim that arises in respect of such finally assessed bills of entry are governed by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for filing of refund claim within a period of one year from the relevant date which is discharge of duty by the importer - section 154 also not applicable in the case - appeal rejected - refund rejected - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time-barred, eligibility for concessional rate of duty, applicability of Customs Act provisions.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - I. The appellant claimed to have paid excess duty while importing machinery under the EPCG licence scheme due to not availing the concessional rate of duty for being a manufacturer of jute products. The appellant argued that they satisfied all conditions for exemption under Notification No. 1/91-Cus, but the refund claim was rejected as time-barred. The appellant contended that not granting exemption amounted to collecting tax without the authority of law, citing relevant judgments. The Departmental Representative maintained that the demands were time-barred.

The Tribunal found the impugned order correct and legal for multiple reasons. Firstly, the appellant's case on limitation was dismissed as the Bills of Entry were assessed in 1991-92, questioning why the error was noticed only in 2003 during the refund claim filing. Refund claims for finally assessed bills are governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, requiring filing within one year from the discharge of duty. Secondly, the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, which the appellant sought to rely on, were deemed inapplicable to the case's circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was correct, the appeal lacked merit, and therefore, it was rejected. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions regarding refund claims and the time limit for filing such claims under the Customs Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.