2019 (2) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - The appellant has filed the refund on 24.5.2012. The due date for filing the refund claim is 26.5.2012. The letter dated 12.11.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Sea Cargo Commissionerate to Air Cargo Commissionerate indicates that the Sea Cargo Commissionerate has received the refund claim on 24.5.2012 - It is seen that the Sea Cargo Commissionerate has slept over the refund claim for almost six months without rejecting or returning the same to the appellant for want of jurisdiction. On receipt of the refund claim, which is filed before wrong jurisdiction, the officer concerned ought to have intimated the appellant to file before the correct jurisdiction. The department having slept over the refund claim for almost six months and thereafter rejecting the same alleging that it is time-barred is unjustified - the appellant has filed the refund claim within the due date before the department. When it has been transferred to the correct Commissionerate (Air Cargo Commissionerate), the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) ought to have considered the same on merits. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), Air Cargo Commissionerate for processing the refund as per law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rejection of refund claim as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for SAD as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007, but it was rejected as time-barred. The appellant argued that the claim was filed within the due date, even though it was submitted to the wrong jurisdiction initially. The Sea Cargo Commissionerate held onto the claim for almost six months before transferring it to the correct jurisdiction. The appellant contended that any delay in transferring the claim was the department's fault, not theirs. The AR supported the rejection, stating that the confusion in the address provided by the appellant caused the delay. Both sides presented their arguments.

The key issue was the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred. Upon reviewing the documents, it was found that the appellant had indeed filed the claim on 24.5.2012, just before the due date of 26.5.2012. The Sea Cargo Commissionerate received the claim on time but delayed processing it for almost six months. The delay was attributed to the department's inaction in informing the appellant of the correct jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the rejection of the claim as time-barred unjustified. The appellant had acted within the due date, and the delay in transferring the claim was not their fault. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for processing the refund within four weeks.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred. The appellant had filed the claim within the due date, and any delay in processing was due to the department's oversight. The matter was remanded for processing the refund as per law within a specified timeframe. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.