9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1359 - AT - CustomsRefund of Customs Duty - the duty was refunded twice - time limitation - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that the duty amounting to ₹ 2,72,701/- has been realized twice from the respondent, first time through Bank Draft deposited at SBI, Air Cargo Complex and second time by electronically debiting ₹ 2,72,701/- along with interest of ₹ 84,052/- - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund claim under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Double duty payment. 3. Time-barred refund claim. 4. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal. Analysis: 1. The case involved a refund claim filed by the respondent under Section 27(1)(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The initial claim was for ?2,72,701, which was later increased to ?3,56,753 due to double duty payment on a Bill of Entry. The respondent realized the error and promptly filed a refund claim through the ICEGATE Help System. The Refund Sanctioning Authority approved a refund of ?2,72,701 instead of the full amount. The Revenue appealed this decision. 2. It was established that the respondent had indeed paid ?2,72,701 twice - first through a Bank Draft in 2011 and then electronically in 2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the refund of ?2,72,701, stating that the claim for the full amount was time-barred as it was made after a year. The Revenue contended that the refund was time-barred since it was processed in 2014. 3. The Tribunal noted that the duty amount of ?2,72,701 had been collected twice from the respondent. The Commissioner's decision was supported as being detailed and justified, hence no intervention was warranted. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the stay petition was also disposed of accordingly. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the refund claim under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the double duty payment issue and the time-barred nature of the full refund claim. The appeal against the Order-in-Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.
|
