9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 226 - AT - CustomsRefund of customs duty paid before assessment of Bill of Entry Held that - word payable means duty which has become due and payable at the time of clearance with fine under Section 125(1) of the Act. Thus it is clearly evident that the duty has become due on the goods in question - It is seen that the appellants paid the amount in question in respect of the assessment of Bill of Entry. By Order dated 17-11-2005 the assessment was done and the goods were confiscated redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Therefore the Revenue is entitled to recover the duty on the said goods. - the amount deposited by the appellants would be adjusted against the duty on the goods in question. Therefore the refund claim was rightly rejected
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act 1962. Analysis: The appellant appealed against the rejection of a refund of Rs. 1,42,391.00, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority citing Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1962, stating it was beyond the stipulated six-month time limit from the date of payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that the amount was deposited before the assessment of the Bill of Entry, which is not considered duty, and thus, Section 27 of the Act should not apply. They referenced a Tribunal decision and stated that they do not intend to clear the goods, seeking a refund of the deposited duty amount. The Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that the goods were confiscated, and the Revenue is entitled to recover the duty amount. After considering both arguments and reviewing the records, the Member (J) found that the goods were indeed confiscated, and a redemption fine was imposed under Section 125 of the Act. The refund claim was rejected based on the limitation under Section 27 of the Act. The Member (J) concluded that the duty on the goods had become due and payable at the time of clearance, as per Section 125(1) of the Act. Therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant would be adjusted against the duty on the goods, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. In light of the above analysis, the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim was dismissed by the Member (J) on 17-10-2008.
|
