2018 (1) TMI 68 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - time limitation - the amount was deposited during investigation and later on the Commissioner has held that the appellant was not liable to pay duty and thereafter the appellant filed the refund claim - Held that - in view of the judgment in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (4) TMI 390 - CESTAT, BANGALORE when the amount is paid during the course of investigation, it is not the duty and it is only a deposit and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable to deposits made during investigations - refund allowed. Interest on delayed refund - Held that - the assessee is entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of filing the application for refund till the refund is granted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of refund claim for duty paid on imported goods.
2. Applicability of limitation period for filing refund claim.
3. Whether duty paid under protest exempts from limitation period.
4. Doctrine of unjust enrichment in the case of deposits during investigation.
5. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the dismissal of the refund claim for duty paid on imported safety devices. The Commissioner of Customs had initially dropped the duty demand on smoke detectors and fire alarm systems, leading the appellants to file a refund claim for duty paid. The lower authority rejected the claim on the grounds of limitation, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in the present appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of the act and binding judicial precedents. They contended that the amount paid during investigation was a deposit and not duty, citing various decisions to support their claim. The Tribunal agreed that the amount paid during investigation did not constitute duty, and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable to such deposits.

3. Regarding the limitation period, the appellant asserted that the 6-month limitation did not apply when deposits were made under protest. They argued that filing the appeal itself indicated payment under protest. The Tribunal concurred, holding that the appeal demonstrated the amount was paid under protest, exempting it from the limitation period.

4. The appellant also argued against the doctrine of unjust enrichment, stating it did not apply to amounts deposited during investigation. The Tribunal agreed, noting that unjust enrichment was not invoked by the Department in this case.

5. Finally, the appellant claimed entitlement to interest on the delayed refund, citing relevant judgments. The Tribunal upheld this claim, referencing decisions supporting interest payment from the date of expiry of three months from the refund application date until the refund is granted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting interest on the delayed refund as per legal precedents.