2018 (1) TMI 434 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - time limitation - Section 11 B of CEA - CBEC Circular No.802/35/2004-CX dated 08.12.2004 - Held that - the Revenue is duty bound to refund the amount paid as duty during course of investigation within three months from the date of order passed by the appellate Tribunal, unless and until there is a stay against the order of this Tribunal - Revenue was duty bound to refund the amount within three months from the date of the order of this Tribunal. As Revenue has failed to discharge the duty, therefore, the refund claim cannot be held as time barred. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred. The appellant paid a sum as anti-dumping duty during an investigation, which was later set aside by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim, which was rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The appellant argued that the refund claim should not be considered time-barred as per CBEC Circular No.802/35/2004-CX, which mandates the refund of pre-deposits within three months from the Tribunal's order unless there is a stay. The appellant relied on a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to support this argument.

The Revenue contended that the amount paid by the appellant during the investigation should not be treated as a pre-deposit, invoking Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue argued that the refund claim was filed after the one-year time limit prescribed under Section 27(1), making it time-barred.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal referred to the CBEC Circular, which states that the Revenue must refund the amount paid as duty within three months from the Tribunal's order unless there is a stay. As the Revenue failed to refund the amount within the specified time frame, the Tribunal held that the refund claim cannot be considered time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the obligations of the Revenue regarding the refund of amounts paid during investigations and highlights the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines for such refunds as per relevant circulars and legal provisions.