2018 (4) TMI 853 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - duty paid on goods which were exempt - time limitation - Section 27 of the Custom Act, 1962 - Held that - appellant herein being a state government, should have, before discharging the custom duty considered all exemptions for the goods imported by them - there is no protest registered by the appellant against the discharge of duty by them, which would mean that they were convinced duty liability arises - time limitation would apply in the case. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claims on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The appellant, a state government department, imported a rubber dam which was fully exempted by Notification. The goods were cleared without claiming the benefit of the Notification. The refund application was filed after being pointed out by CAG during record checking. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim as it was filed after one year from duty payment, citing Section 27 of the Custom Act, 1962. The 1st Appellate Authority also upheld the rejection.

The appellant argued that the custom duty was not payable, relying on precedents like Monnet International Ltd. and Hind Agro Industries. They also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Hitachi Koki India Pvt. Ltd. to support their stance that the limitation period under Section 27 of the Custom Act would not apply in such circumstances. However, after considering the submissions and authorities cited, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the refund claims were indeed filed beyond the limitation period. Despite being a state government department, the appellant did not consider exemptions before paying the duty, and no protest was registered against the duty payment, indicating their acceptance of duty liability. The 1st Appellate Authority's findings were deemed correct, as the duty payments were made without protest before the limitation period lapsed.

The Tribunal upheld the Impugned Order, stating that the factual matrix and Section 27 of the Custom Act, 1962 applied to the case. It was concluded that the rejection of the refund claims based on limitation was correct and legal, warranting no interference. Consequently, the Impugned Order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.