2017 (2) TMI 86 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of Time bar - natural justice - Held that - the ends of justice require that the petitioner has an opportunity of meeting the case on merits. The petitioner has already paid the entire duty and seeks a refund thereof. On merits, the petitioner has succeeded right up to the Supreme Court. The only issue is one of limitation - The Deputy Commissioner, Customs is directed to pass a fresh order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard - petition disposed off - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting refund claim, success on merits, limitation on refund application, opportunity for petitioner to be heard, quashing of impugned order, directions for fresh order by Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejecting its claim for refund in connection with three bills of entry. Despite the petitioner's success on merits, the respondents contended that the refund application was time-barred. The Department had granted refunds for five bills of entries but not for the remaining three. The petitioner argued that the payments were made under protest, seeking to circumvent the limitation issue.

The notification for the application hearing was dispatched on 12.04.2016 and received by the petitioner on 23.04.2016, specifying hearing dates of 18.04.2016, 21.04.2016, or 25.04.2016 at 3:00 p.m. However, the petitioner only received the notice on 23.04.2016, leading to a delay in acknowledging the hearing dates. Given the circumstances, the court emphasized the importance of ensuring the petitioner's right to present their case on merits, especially since they had already paid the full duty and were seeking a refund, supported by their success in the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Customs to issue a fresh order after allowing the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 09.02.2017 at 11:00 a.m. and as per further directions from the authority. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition accordingly, ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and addressing the limitation issue in the refund application process.