2017 (5) TMI 937 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the appellant filed two claims in one month - The main defence of the appellant is that it is a principle of law that substantial benefit given by the Statute cannot be denied on procedural grounds. When the fact of payment of VAT by the appellant is not in dispute they are entitled to refund of Additional Duty of Customs - Held that - when Section 27 of the Customs Act has not put any specific bar on number of claims to be filed, the refund procedure prescribed by the Revenue restricting the claim to one in a month for the present facts appears to be only a procedural impediment which cannot come in a way to grant the refund to the appellant - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim rejection based on filing two claims in one month

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim due to filing two claims in one month, as upheld in Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2014. The main objection by the Revenue was the contravention of Circular No. 6/2008-Cus, which allows only one claim per month. The appellant argued that procedural grounds should not deny substantial benefits granted by the Statute. They contended that since the payment of VAT was undisputed, they were entitled to a refund of Additional Duty of Customs - SAD under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant cited Tribunal decisions in support of their claim, emphasizing that the Circular did not bar multiple claims and that the statutory time limit for filing a claim should not be circumvented by procedural restrictions.

The Tribunal analyzed the Circular's provision stating that only one claim should be filed per importer per month, irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry. However, in this case, the appellant filed the first claim for sold goods, while the present claim was for unsold goods, hence justifying the separate claims. The Tribunal noted that the Circular allowed for exceptions when the one-year period was about to expire, ensuring that claimants were not deprived of their rights due to procedural constraints. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal held that despite procedural violations, claimants should not be denied legitimate refunds, especially when statutory time limits are involved.

Considering that Section 27 of the Customs Act does not impose a specific bar on the number of claims, the Tribunal viewed the Revenue's restriction on one claim per month as a procedural impediment. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as necessary. The judgment emphasized that procedural requirements should not obstruct genuine claims for refunds, particularly when statutory time limits are at stake.