2017 (4) TMI 734 - AT - Customs

SEZ unit - refund claim - rejection on the ground of limitation - case of appellant is that having paid the duty under protest, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - case of the department is that there is no document to show that duty was paid under protest - whether the duty has been paid by the appellant under protest or not? - Held that - the appellants have intimated their protest of paying the duty by the letter dated 27.02.2009. The adjudicating authority has not accepted this letter stating that it is only a letter requesting for release of bank guarantee and not a letter intimating protest - since the appellants have intimated their protest within reasonable time, that is within 2 weeks of payment of duty, this letter issued by them can be considered as intimation of protest. The immediateness of the letter shows that it was not issued solely with intention to extend limitation. The refund cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 3,14,923/- remain undisturbed as appellant not contesting the same - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a SEZ unit, procured steel items for construction during a specific period and paid export duty. The issue of whether export duty is payable on goods supplied to SEZ units was under challenge and later settled in favor of the assessee by a judgment. The appellant filed a refund claim, which was proposed to be rejected on various grounds, including the limitation period.

2. The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation, stating that there was no sufficient document to establish that the duty had been paid under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the duty being paid under protest within the prescribed time frame.

3. The appellant contended that they had intimated their protest through a letter and requested the release of a bank guarantee, but the authorities did not consider it as a protest letter. The appellant argued that since they paid the duty under protest, the claim should not be rejected based on limitation.

4. The main issue to be decided was whether the duty had been paid by the appellant under protest. The appellant maintained that they had intimated their protest within a reasonable time frame, as evidenced by the letter dated 27.02.2009. The absence of a specific procedure for marking protest by the assessee was highlighted, and the appellant's timely intimation was considered valid by the appellate authority.

5. The appellate tribunal concluded that the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The rejection of the refund claim for a specific amount was set aside, while the rejection of another amount was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed based on the valid intimation of protest within a reasonable time frame.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the parties, the considerations of the authorities, and the final decision of the appellate tribunal regarding the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation.