2018 (8) TMI 333 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - relevant date - Whether the date of issue of the order or the date of receipt of the order by the appellant should be considered for reckoning the date by which refund claim has to be filed? Held that - The law has been laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. 1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA where it was held that the date to be reckoned in such cases starts from the date of the order was communicated to the appellant. It is clear that as far as the assessee is concerned the date of the order should be taken as the date on which it has been communicated to them - There is no alternative to hold that the date of the communication of the order of the CESTAT to the appellant should be reckoned to decide the time limit for filing the refund claim. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the date for filing a refund claim based on the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Lithium Batteries and claimed exemption under a specific notification. Discrepancies were found during examination, leading to the imposition of customs duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The appellant appealed the decision, and the CESTAT Bangalore set aside the original order. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund application, which was rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, citing the date of the order as the date of pronouncement. The appellant argued that the order must be communicated to them for the limitation period to start, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. The Departmental Representative contended that the refund application must be filed within six months of the order date, not the receipt date.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M.M. Rubber Co., emphasizing that the date of communication of the order to the appellant is crucial for determining the filing deadline for a refund claim. Following this principle, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs. The judgment clarified that the date of communication of the CESTAT's order to the appellant should be the reference point for filing a refund claim, not the date of pronouncement.