2017 (10) TMI 766 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground that the same is time-barred and that required documents were not furnished by the appellants - Held that - the appellants have filed the refund claim on 06.05.2012 whereas originally M/s. BEML filed the refund claim which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2012 on the ground that BEML has neither paid the duty nor borne the duty. After the rejection of refund claim by BEML, M/s. BEML has not filed appeal against the Order-in-Original but appellant has filed the refund claim on 06.05.2012 whereas re-assessment was made on 30.12.2009 which is barred by Section 27 - as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, the time for filing the refund claim has to be strictly followed and the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant saying that it was only a deposit and not the duty is not tenable in law - the time limit as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable in the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim rejection.
2. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Claimant's right to file refund.
4. Clerical error in duty payment.
5. Legal interpretation of refund provisions.

Issue 1: Time-barred refund claim rejection:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The claim was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred, as it was filed on 06.05.2012, three years after the duty payment. The reassessment was done on 30.12.2009, following an Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2009. The Tribunal found that the time limit for filing a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act must be strictly followed. The rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner in the case of M/s. BEML was also considered relevant in determining the time-barred nature of the appellant's claim.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant argued that the excess duty paid was a deposit due to a clerical error and not actual duty, hence Section 27 of the Customs Act did not apply. However, the Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 27 must be adhered to for refund claims, regardless of whether the excess payment was due to a clerical error. The Tribunal emphasized that the time limit prescribed under Section 27 is applicable in such cases, as seen in the decision of Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Vs. CC. The Tribunal further clarified that the only provision for refund under the Customs Act is Section 27, and any claim must adhere to the time limit provided therein.

Issue 3: Claimant's right to file refund:
The appellant contended that they had the right to file the refund claim as agents of M/s. BEML, who were the importers and owners of the goods. They argued that once an amendment to the Bill of Entry is permitted, the excess duty should be refunded without a separate application under Section 27. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant's filing of the refund claim after the rejection of M/s. BEML's claim did not comply with the time limits set by Section 27. The Tribunal emphasized that the claimant must be the party who has either paid or borne the duty to be eligible for a refund.

Issue 4: Clerical error in duty payment:
The case involved a clerical error in the application of exchange rates, leading to the payment of excess duty. The appellant sought rectification of the error and reassessment of the Bill of Entry to claim a refund. The Tribunal noted that the correction of clerical and arithmetical errors, as per Section 154 of the Customs Act, does not automatically entitle the party to a refund. The Tribunal highlighted that the refund provisions under Section 27 must be strictly followed, and the time limit for filing refund claims is crucial.

Issue 5: Legal interpretation of refund provisions:
The Tribunal analyzed the legal interpretations provided by both parties. The appellant relied on specific decisions to support their argument, while the respondent defended the rejection of the refund claim based on the time-barred nature of the claim. The Tribunal considered the precedents cited by the appellant but ultimately found them inapplicable to the present case. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time limits and provisions of Section 27 for refund claims.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's legal interpretation and decision on each issue.