2017 (4) TMI 263 - AT - Customs

Abandonment of goods - refund claim rejected on the ground of limitation - Held that - Revenue has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Miles India 1983 (1) TMI 280 - CEGAT NEW DELHI , which has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court, where it was held that wherein the principle that statutory authorities are bound by the time limit provided by the Statute was approved and confirmed, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present appeal - the limitation prescribed u/s 27 would be applicable in this case - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Duty refund claim filed beyond the prescribed time limit.

Analysis:
1. The case involves M/s Vardhman Exports importing goods and paying duty on 18.4.2009, with the goods not being cleared immediately, leading to a dispute raised by Revenue resulting in absolute confiscation and penalty imposition on the appellant on 20.11.2009. The appellant contested the penalty but did not challenge the confiscation, subsequently abandoning the goods and filing a duty refund claim on 09.10.2009, rejected due to being filed after the 6-month limitation period from the duty payment date.

2. The appellant argued that the refund claim was within the limitation period, citing the Tribunal's decision in Ankit Pulps & Boards Pvt. Ltd. case and High Court decisions in Calcutta Chemicals Company Ltd. and ICI India Ltd. cases. However, the AR contested, relying on the tribunal's previous order in the appellant's case and the Miles India Ltd. case, asserting no refund was due, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal examined the arguments, noting the duty payment date of 18.4.2009 and the refund claim filed on 09.02.2010, clearly exceeding the 6-month limitation period. The appellant's contention that the limitation period should start from the Additional Commissioner's order was dismissed, as no authority supported this claim. The cited cases did not address refund limitation issues, with the Calcutta Chemicals Co. Ltd. case focusing on calculation errors, not applicable in the current scenario. The ICI India Ltd. case was also distinguished, as Revenue relied on the Miles India Ltd. case upheld by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the Customs Act's Section 27 limitation provision.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Section 27 limitation applied, dismissing the appeal on 29.12.2016, as the refund claim was time-barred, aligning with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar cases.